SUPPORT: "To prohibit the conduct of a first-use nuclear strike absent a declaration of war by Congress."

Something we can all agree on:
HR.669/S.200 - "To prohibit the conduct of a first-use
nuclear strike absent a declaration of war by Congress."
(Please share this message on Twitter.)

Congressman Ted Lieu (CA-33) and Senator Ed Markey (MA) have re-introduced their bill HR.669/S.200 to prohibit the president from carrying out a nuclear first strike without express authorization via a declaration of war by Congress.

HOUSE: HR. 669 - "To prohibit the conduct of a first-use nuclear strike absent a declaration of war by Congress."

SENATE: S. 200 - "To prohibit the conduct of a first-use nuclear strike absent a declaration of war by Congress."

Already, there are over 50 co-sponsors of this bill. (You can watch the press conference for the bill's re-introduction on Facebook.) More co-sponsors are needed.

Why not use this opportunity to begin a relationship with your representative in Congress, and your senators? If they are already sponsors of HR.669/S.200, thank them! If not, encourage them to do so! (See up-to-date lists of: House co-sponsors ... Senate co-sponsors ... )

And then let it be the being of an ongoing, in-depth conversation between you and your elected representatives about the gravest risk facing us today.

For far too long, Congress (and the citizenry) have been out of the loop when it comes to US nuclear weapons policy and practice; this bill gets them back in control.  (And gets us back in control!)

This isn't the last bill that will be required in order to make all of us safe from nuclear weapons; rather it is the first step in an engaged Congress and engaged citizenry tackling nuclear weapons danger once and for all.


Related posts

Nuclear Weapons: People Power Over Trump Power

"Thermonuclear Monarchy: Choosing Between Democracy and Doom" by Elaine Scarry

Yes, Trump to North Korea ... AND ... #restrictnukes

On a scale of 1 to 10, how important is it that we keep working
to restrict the ability of #DonaldTrump to use #nuclearweapons?
(Please share this message on Twitter.)

Yes, Donald Trump says he will go to meet with North Korea Leader Kim Jung-un by May.

. . . AND . . .

It still remains URGENT that formal steps succeed in restricting the ability of the US president to carry out a first strike with nuclear weapons.

As of today, there are 80 House members and 14 senators supporting restrictions on the ability of the US president to unilaterally call a nuclear first strike:

Co-sponsors of  HR.669 "Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017" (plus bill sponsor Rep. Ted Lieu)

Co-sponsors of S.200 "Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017" (plus bill sponsor Sen. Ed Markey)

Are your representative and senators supporting this bill?

This is not the end of the struggle to #restrictnukes. It's just the beginning . . . .


Related:

Full transcript of conference -- "Virtual Roundtable on Presidential First Use of Nuclear Weapons" -- from Public Books.

Nuclear Weapons: People Power Over Trump Power


Please share this post . . . .

Where to Put Effort for a World Beyond War

Are you looking ahead to a world beyond war? Education, infrastructure, and decisions about communal action are the key . . . .

"Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which
to place it and I shall move the world."
Archimedes

"A lot of people are opposed to war, but what might look different when a group of people approach war as a soon-to-be-obsolete institution?"

It was a month ago that I posed that question in WAR: Headed for the junkheap, yes . . . but how quickly?

I gave one answer to the question in The Mind of the "World Beyond War" Activist: "Saying 'war is going away; the question for me is how fast' implies optimism-realism, outcome orientation, and humility."

But does the "world beyond war" approach help determine where to put effort?

It seems to me that there are some obvious places to focus. Once one is able to imagine a world in which war is a no-go, it becomes possible to imagine certain aspects of that world that will be starkly different than the world in which we live today -- aspects of life that will be inherent to a world beyond war. And, having imagined these aspects, we realize that it seems very hard to imagine having arrived at the world beyond war without the hand-in-hand changes in those aspects themselves. In other words: what would be rendered profoundly outdated if it survived into a world without war?


(1) Education - In a world beyond war, it will no longer make sense to spend a lot of time becoming knowledgeable about war.

We sometimes imagine that education is fundamentally about building up a store of absolute truths; more and more, however, we are realizing that education mostly has to do with acquiring knowledge of what works in the world.

In the world to date, there has been a prevailing emphasis on learning about wars: how they begin, how they are fought, who makes the critical decisions, who leads the fighting, who follows the orders, who derives the benefits from the wars, how the wars are ended, and what changes after they end. The result is that our society is dominated by people who are highly educated about war, and have devoted little time to learning about other ways of settling conflicts.

The inflection point will come when society begins to reward people who know a great deal about how to resolve conflict in the absence of war -- particularly those who can provide value in the form of outcomes that give maximum possible satisfaction to all the parties to a given conflict.

     ... for more see An Educational Alternative to Rivalry


(2) Infrastructure - In a world beyond war, it will no longer make sense to be in possession of massive amounts of infrastructure for carrying out war.

Infrastructure requires time to build. The process of infrastructure development inherently involves trying to imagine what will be needed in the future.

In the world to date, there has been a prevailing attitude toward war infrastructure that says, "Because the cost of failing to have it when we need it would be so high, the only sensible choice is to build as much as we possibly can -- in case we need it."

The inflection point will come when a new attitude begins to gain adherents: "Any overspending on infrastructure that turns out to be useless, will be deeply corrosive to our joint endeavors."

     ... for more see An Infrastructural Alternative to Military Spending


(3) Decisions about communal action - In a world beyond war, it will no longer make sense to hold counsels about decisions to go to war. No one will participate.

In the United States today, we are still living with a constitution that spells out certain war powers, and we maintain an ideal - only intermittently practiced, as it turns out -- in which a highly democratic process may result in a decision to go to war, or not to go to war.

In the world to date, there has been a prevailing acceptance of the wisdom of the group -- some form of democracy -- to decide whether to embark on communal violence. This is in contrast to our views about individual violence, which we tend to view as something which is virtually never ratified by a claim of "wisdom."

The inflection point will come when our systems of group decision-making begin to include norms of "more wisdom, less violence" in proportion to the scope and size of the decision-making forum.

     ... for more see "Problems from Hell" and Real Options Under Democracy


Each of these aspects of our communal life involves an inflection point. And the interesting thing is that, after the inflection point, things will change very fast. The new pattern of education . . . the new direction in infrastructure . . . the new civic decision-making . . . they will all hasten the coming of the world beyond war.

So . . . are there ways to devote effort to assure that we reach each of these inflection points sooner?


Related posts

People working for peace are intensely attuned to the way education impacts peace efforts -- and also war efforts.

(See Education for Peace? or "Education IS Peace"?)













Just like a family that has extra rooms in its house which inevitably become filled with stuff, the U.S. has thousands of bases -- here, there, and everywhere -- that inevitably create the "need" to spend.

(See What Will "Strategic" Mean in Our Children's Lifetime?)






As all the other senators sat patiently through the obfuscation of Barack Obama's Three Horsemen of the Apocalypse -- Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Martin Dempsey -- Rand Paul gave 'em hell.
"Stand up for us and say you’re going to obey the Constitution and if we vote you down — which is unlikely, by the way — you would go with what the people say through their Congress and you wouldn’t go forward with a war that your Congress votes against."

(See Obama's Syria "Vote" in Congress: Democracy? or Theater? )


There is a growing movement of people focused on the "world beyond war." To many of these people, the question is not "if" but "when?" They share a conviction that the world will get there, and they see that it makes a difference how quickly (and in what manner) the world gets there.

(See WAR: Headed for the junkheap, yes . . . but how quickly?)

Confronting Permawar: 5 Lessons from Captain Smith

Captain Nathan Michael Smith -- US Army photo

 
US Army Capt. Nathan Michael Smith has sued the commander-in-chief, President Obama, for ordering war in violation of the US Constitution. Therein lie 5 lessons.


(1) What we've got: permawar

"Permawar" (who benefits?)

The US is making war in so many places, and so continuously, that it not longer makes sense to speak of this war or that war; it is a state of permanent war -- "permawar."

George W. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" stunt only serves to underline the fact that it's never mission accomplished -- the US rolls from conflict to conflict to conflict -- Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Iraq . . . .

The next war is always just around the corner (e.g. Iran) or being carried out by a proxy (e.g. in Palestine).

Many people seem to have forgotten this is not the way it's supposed to be. But Capt. Smith hasn't. (He remembers the Constitution he's sworn to to uphold.)


(2) Why we've got it: Congress is asleep

One explanation for the
Congressional coma . . .

People can disagree over Congress' performance in general, but there can be no disagreement that Congress has failed to do it's job with respect to war. Under Article I, Section 8, of the US Constitution, the Congress shall have Power...:

* [Clause 10] To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

* [Clause 11] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

* [Clause 12] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

* [Clause 13] To provide and maintain a Navy;

* [Clause 14] To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

* [Clause 15] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

* [Clause 16] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

(3) PS: WE're asleep!

Tell Congress: say NO to war!

And before we ordinary citizens get all huffy, we need to remember: Congress works for us!

Ask yourself:

* do you know the details of Congress' war powers under the US Constitution?

* when was the last time you told your congressman in detail how you wanted her/him to represent you in war deliberations?

* which advocacy group(s) do you work with on issues of war and peace?

(4) It's not hopeless

FLASHBACK:
On Syria, It's Time for Congress
to Remember Who They Represent

It's important to remember that there is a very recent example of the People telling Congress, and then Congress telling the President, that the US should not go to war.

In summer/fall 2013, President Obama was on the verge of going to war in Syria. Congress debated the issue and the US public resoundingly told their members of Congress they opposed war.

The US finds all kinds of ways to contribute to war and violence in places like Syria. But there's no question that US citizens and the US Congress can slow it and stop it when they try.


(5) It will take courage

I am (I will become) Bradley Manning

I can't imagine the courage that Capt. Nathan Michael Smith has mustered to challenge his commander-in-chief.

However, I've noticed we're seeing more and more people come forward to put the truth and justice above their own personal convenience and comfort.

For those of us who lack the opportunity and/or courage to make such big contributions, we can still ask: what can I do to lift up and support the work of such citizen leaders?



Related posts

In four hundred and thirty-five Congressional districts, there is an inseparable relationship between campaign funding for Congressional races and the military contractors. How do we push back?


(See IT'S A LOCK: Why the US Can't Break Its Addiction to War)





Anyone who has had to write a speech knows that the hardest part is to land on the main idea. Once you've got that right, the rest practically writes itself.

(See "The way to respond to ISIS is not through violence." )





First Reps. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ) and Keith Ellison (D-MN) called the U.S. on the carpet for dodging the call from the international community to come clean about its drone killings. Then Reps. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Walter Jones (R-NC) submitted a bill calling for drone transparency. So ... are we finally going to get the truth?

(See REAL Progressives Demand that the U.S. Come Clean on Drone Killings) 

"OMG! We could actually DEBATE this!" (Congress on Iraq, ISIS, and AUMF)

more war? what if Congress JUST SAYS NO! ??

Iraq is melting -- how did that happen? -- and the usual suspects have concluded there's no time like the present to inject another dose of US firepower into the situation. (Because . . . nothing helps stop violence like additional violence?)

Rep. Peter Welch (VT) has pointed out that Congress is abdicating it's Constitutional responsibility if it doesn't debate the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) for US troops and other military activity in Iraq.

Peace Action West has provided an action page showing how you can contact your member of Congress and tell them to do their job.

PS - Congress held such a debate just a few years ago. It stopped the Obama administration in its tracks from attacking Syria. See Syria: Where Have We Ended Up?

Related posts

Greenwald Was Right: "Humanitarian" War in Syria? It's Just More War

J'ACCUSE: The Beneficiaries of Permawar


More related posts

It will be the 2016 presidential election that will provide the main form of entertainment and distraction to the U.S. populace between now an the end of next year. An enormous amount of political fluff will fill our lives -- pushing aside, I suppose, vast amounts of sports fluff and shopping fluff and celebrity fluff and -- well, you get the point.

(See What Will Dominate Election 2016? (ANSWER: ISIS and #BlackLivesMatter) )








I believe an enormous number of people will conclude that, if they really believe "we can choose to abolish war," then what's required is to speak it.

(See "We can choose to abolish war" (The rest is just details) )

In the past several weeks, the President of the United States tried to undertake an attack against a foreign country, but the American people said "Hell no!" and the Congress let the President know they couldn't support it. How often does that happen?

(See When THE PEOPLE Take Control: "Anything Can Happen")

Congress is a Bunch of Putzes

Republican members of Congress listen to President
Obama's 2015 State of the Union address. (Reuters)

A majority of Congress thinks the President can't be trusted.

This became clear to me as I watched the State of the Union Address and looked at the scowling faces of Republican members, particularly as President Obama taunted them with a promise to veto unsatisfactory legislation they send his way. (And more - see "Obama message to Republicans comes out in speech ad-libs, body language")

Could anything be more indicative of Congress' desire to be rid of this President than its invitation to the Prime Minister of another country to come counsel them in his stead about Iran? (See "Boehner's Netanyahu Invite Is An 'Unprecedented' Diss Of Obama")

And yet . . . .

The Congress that doesn't trust the President with taxes or health care or immigration or energy policy is perfectly happy to leave him with the sole power to blow up the world.

Look: one of two things must be true.

EITHER 

Barack Obama can't be trusted, particularly with

the power to launch nuclear weapons -- a power that

would inevitably lead to a full exchange of

missiles and unimaginable devastation . . .

OR 

You're okay with Barack Obama having

his finger on the nuclear trigger

(in which case maybe STFU about the other stuff . . . . )

The choice is especially stark since the Constitution makes it very clear that the powers of the Congress and the People preclude placing the power to destroy the world in the hands of the President alone.

The choice matters. There is no question that the fate of the planet hinges on nuclear disarmament, and the fate of nuclear disarmament hinges on the massive U.S. nuclear arsenal.

So choose.

The choices are: (a) take back the power currently held by our thermonuclear monarch; or (b) shut up and pray. Those are the only two choices, and everybody gets to choose where they stand.

As for the people in Congress who won't step up to either of them?

They're nothing but a bunch of putzes.

PS:

We're the putzes who elected them.


TAKE ACTION:

Force this Congress to take back

its Constitutional powers.

AND/OR

Elect a Congress that will.

Related posts

The decision about whether to live with the threat of nuclear annihilation is our decision. And that is why the entire country is mobilizing for mass action for nuclear disarmament in 2015. Are we capable of making sure the messengers -- Obama, Putin, the other agents of government -- hear their instructions from us clearly?

(See NEEDED: Heroes to Bring About Nuclear Disarmament )

Elaine Scarry demonstrates that the power of one leader to obliterate millions of people with a nuclear weapon - a possibility that remains very real even in the wake of the Cold War - deeply violates our constitutional rights, undermines the social contract, and is fundamentally at odds with the deliberative principles of democracy.

(See Reviews of "Thermonuclear Monarchy: Choosing Between Democracy and Doom" by Elaine Scarry )











There are three centers of power that will impact nuclear disarmament: the President, the Congress, and the people. One of them will have to make nuclear disarmament happen.

(See Countdown to U.S. Nuclear Disarmament (With or Without the Politicians) )








"Please work with your colleagues (in Congress) and your constituents (here in the 5th district) to regain the People's control over war and injury, and bring to a conclusion the current crisis of our government."
(See An Open Letter to Congressman Mike Quigley: Can We Reduce (or Eliminate) the Nuclear Threat? ) 

REAL Progressives Demand that the U.S. Come Clean on Drone Killings

Rep. Adam Schiff

Rep. Walter Jones

[UPDATE April 2, 2014: Reps. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Walter Jones (R-NC) have now submitted a bill calling for drone transparency. See Natasha Lennard, "New Bill Aims for Drone Transparency," and Thomas Earnest, "Representatives Schiff and Jones Introduce Bill to Increase Transparency in U.S. Drone Program." 

[See also Joint Statement in Support of The Targeted Lethal Force Transparency Act by Amnesty International, Arab American Institute, Center for Civilians in Conflict, Center for Constitutional Rights, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Global Justice Clinic, NYU School of Law, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, National Security Network, Open Society Policy Center, Peace Action West, Reprieve, and Win Without War.

[SEE: hub page for all Resources to SUPPORT the "Come Clean on Drone Killings" Act (Schiff/Jones HR 4372: the Targeted Lethal Force Transparency Act)]

[ORIGINAL MARCH 31 POST BEGINS HERE]

Reps. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and Keith Ellison (D-Minn.)

Reps. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) have called the U.S. on the carpet for dodging the call from the international community to come clean about its drone killings.

Now it's time for all 62 other members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus to step up to the plate.

Grijalva and Ellison's initiative creates an opportunity for all of us to demand of our progressive representatives that they, too, take a stand. It's a simple yes-or-no, no-ifs-ands-or-buts question:

"Have you signed on to the CPC co-chairs' demand

that 'our intelligence agencies provide

an annual public accounting

of the number of civilian casualties

caused by drone strikes overseas'?"

BACKGROUND

The Grijalva-Ellison demand was provoked by a series of events at the United Nations.

First, in October, 2013, a pair of long-awaited reports by the U.N. special rapporteurs on counter-terrorism and on extrajudicial executions were published. The included an unambiguous demand for a full accounting of drone killings.

This was followed by a little-publicized General Assembly vote that use of drones in counter-terrorism must comply with international law.

By early 2014, people were beginning to realize that the government was succeeding in quashing debate about its extrajudicial executions simply through its silence. A consensus began to build around the key point of pressure: the need to bear down on the U.S. government to come clean about its drone killings.

When the U.N. Human Rights council convened in March to take up the matter of the drone killings, the U.S. government had a simple solution: boycott.

And thus it was the sight of the U.S. government fleeing a U.N. convocation into human rights that provoked the call by Reps. Grijalva and Ellison. "Instead of working closely with the international community to help strengthen current international standards on the use of drones, the U.S. government decided to boycott a discussion of the draft resolution. We are troubled by the ease with which dialogue and diplomacy—values at the center of the president’s foreign policy—were cast aside in this debate," they said in their statement.

"Today’s vote highlights the need for Congress to play a larger role in overseeing and regulating the use of lethal force abroad. Requiring that our intelligence agencies provide an annual public accounting of the number of civilian casualties caused by drone strikes overseas — a measure included in the proposed Fiscal Year 2014 Intelligence Authorization Act — would be a good start," they said. (emphasis added)

NEXT STEPS

Reps. Grijalva and Ellison issued their call in their capacity as co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.  The clear next steps is for every other member of the CPC to join the call. This is a simple but unambiguous assertion by Congress of authority in the U.S. drone killing program, and it is vital that there be unanimous support by the CPC.

Please look at the list below and write personally to the member who represents you.  Now is the time for us to insist on public statements from every member of Congress that they unreservedly support the call for the U.S. to come clean about its drone killings.

And if you live in Arizona or Minnesota . . . you have a thank you note to send.

(PS - Raul Grijalva is now a -- CO-SPONSOR of HR 4372: the Targeted Lethal Force Transparency Act - Read more about Raul Grijalva's sponsorship)


Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus

(note: may of these members signed the May 10, 2012 letter to President Obama calling for drones transparency - 5/10/2012 letter)


CALIFORNIA
CA02 - Jared Huffman @RepHuffman

CA11 - George Miller @askgeorge (5/10/2012 letter)

CA13 - Barbara Lee @RepBarbaraLee (5/10/2012 letter) - Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus Peace and Security Task Force. See "Rep. Lee Demands Administration’s Full Response on Drones" March 11, 2013 -- CO-SPONSOR! HR 4372: the Targeted Lethal Force Transparency Act

CA17 - Michael Honda @RepMikeHonda (5/10/2012 letter)

CA20 - Sam Farr @RepSamFarr

CA27 - Judy Chu @RepJudyChu

CA34 - Xavier Becerra @RepBecerra

CA37 - Karen Bass @RepKarenBass

CA40 - Lucille Roybal-Allard @RepRoybalAllard

CA41 - Mark Takano @RepMarkTakano

CA43 - Maxine Waters @MaxineWaters

CA44 - Janice Hahn @Rep_JaniceHahn

CA47 - Alan Lowenthal @RepLowenthal -- CO-SPONSOR! HR 4372: the Targeted Lethal Force Transparency Act


COLORADO
CO02 - Jared Polis @RepJaredPolis - See the call on No Drones Colorado for Jared Polis to support the "Come Clean" bill!


CONNECTICUT
CT03 - Rosa DeLauro @rosadelauro - See the call on No Drones New England for Rosa DeLauro to support the "Come Clean" bill!


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DC00 - Eleanor Norton @EleanorNorton


FLORIDA
FL05 - Corrine Brown @RepCorrineBrown

FL09 - Alan Grayson @AlanGrayson - See the call on No Drones Florida for Alan Grayson to support the "Come Clean" bill!

FL22 - Lois Frankel @RepLoisFrankel

FL24 - Frederica Wilson @RepWilson


GEORGIA
GA04 - Henry Johnson @RepHankJohnson (5/10/2012 letter)

GA05 - John Lewis @repjohnlewis (5/10/2012 letter)

See the call on No Drones Georgia for Henry "Hank" Johnson and John Lewis to support the "Come Clean" bill!


IOWA
IA02 - David Loebsack @daveloebsack - See the call on No Drones Iowa for David Loebsack to support the "Come Clean" bill!


ILLINOIS
IL04 - Luis Gutierrez @RepGutierrez (5/10/2012 letter)

IL07 - Danny Davis @RepDannyDavis

IL09 - Jan Schakowsky @janschakowsky Offered an unsuccessful amendment in late 2013 that would have banned signature strikes.


INDIANA
IN07 - André Carson @RepAndreCarson - See the call on Indiana Drones Project for André Carson to support the "Come Clean" bill!


MASSACHUSETTS
MA02 - James McGovern @RepMcGovern (5/10/2012 letter) -- CO-SPONSOR! HR 4372: the Targeted Lethal Force Transparency Act

MA04 - Joseph Kennedy @RepJoeKennedy

MA07 - Michael Capuano @mikecapuano

See the call on No Drones New England for Joseph Kennedy and Michael Capuano to support the "Come Clean" bill!


MARYLAND
MD04 - Donna Edwards @repdonnaedwards (5/10/2012 letter)

MD07 - Elijah Cummings @RepCummings

See the call on No Drones Maryland for Donna Edwards and Elijah Cummings to support the "Come Clean" bill!


MAINE
ME01 - Chellie Pingree @chelliepingree - See the call on No Drones New England for Chellie Pingree to support the "Come Clean" bill!


MICHIGAN
MI13 - John Conyers @repjohnconyers (5/10/2012 letter) - See the call on No Drones Michigan for John Conyers to support the "Come Clean" bill!


MINNESOTA
MN08 - Richard Nolan @USRepRickNolan


MISSOURI
MO05 - Emanuel Cleaver @repcleaver - See the call on No Drones Missouri for Emanuel Cleaver to support the "Come Clean" bill!


MISSISSIPPI
MS02 - Bennie Thompson @HomelandDems


NEW JERSEY
NJ06 - Frank Pallone @FrankPallone

NJ12 - Rush Holt @RushHolt - - See the call on No Drones New Jersey for Rush Holt to support the "Come Clean" bill!


NEVADA
NV04 - Steven Horsford @RepHorsford


NEW YORK
NY07 - Nydia Velázquez @NydiaVelazquez

NY08 - Hakeem Jeffries @RepJeffries

NY09 - Yvette Clarke @YvetteClarke (5/10/2012 letter)

NY10 - Jerrold Nadler @RepJerryNadler (5/10/2012 letter) - Watch Rep. Nadler on drones during a February, 2013, committee hearing.

NY12 - Carolyn Maloney @RepMaloney

NY13 - Charles Rangel @cbrangel (5/10/2012 letter)

NY15 - José Serrano @RepJoseSerrano

NY25 - Louise Slaughter @louiseslaughter

See the call on No Drones New York State for these progressive members of Congress from New York to support the "Come Clean" bill!


OHIO
OH11 - Marcia Fudge @RepMarciaFudge - See the call on No Drones Ohio for Marcia Fudge to support the "Come Clean" bill!


OREGON
OR01 - Suzanne Bonamici @RepBonamici

OR04 - Peter DeFazio @RepPeterDeFazio (5/10/2012 letter) - CO-SPONSOR! HR 4372: the Targeted Lethal Force Transparency Act - Read more about Peter DeFazio's sponsorship


PENNSYLVANIA
PA02 - Chaka Fattah @chakafattah

PA17 - Matt Cartwright @RepCartwright

See the call on No Drones Pennsylvania for Chaka Fattah and Matt Cartwright to support the "Come Clean" bill!


RHODE ISLAND
RI01 - David Cicilline @davidcicilline - See the call on No Drones New England for David Cicilline to support the "Come Clean" bill!


TENNESSEE
TN09 - Steve Cohen @RepCohen - See the call on No Drones Tennessee for Steve Cohen to support the "Come Clean" bill!


TEXAS
TX18 - Sheila Jackson Lee @JacksonLeeTX18

TX30 - Eddie Johnson @RepEBJ

See the call on No Drones Texas for Sheila Jackson Lee and Eddie Bernice Johnson to support the "Come Clean" bill!


VIRGINIA
VA08 - James Moran @Jim_Moran - See the call on No Drones Virginia for Jim Moran to support the "Come Clean" bill!


VIRGIN ISLANDS
VI00 - Donna Christensen @DelegateDonna


VERMONT
VT00 - Peter Welch @PeterWelch - July 12, 2013Welch introduces legislation to limit domestic drones, protect privacy -- CO-SPONSOR! HR 4372: the Targeted Lethal Force Transparency Act


WASHINGTON
WA07 - Jim McDermott @RepJimMcDermott (5/10/2012 letter) -- CO-SPONSOR! HR 4372: the Targeted Lethal Force Transparency Act - Read more about Jim McDermott's sponsorship


WISCONSIN
WI02 - Mark Pocan @MarkPocan

WI04 - Gwen Moore @RepGwenMoore

See the call on No Drones Wisconsin for Mark Pocan and Gwen Moore to support the "Come Clean" bill!


Related posts

A 2013 U.N. report makes it clear that the U.S. has to report fully on all its drone attacks.

(See 2014: The Year of Transparency (for U.S. Drone Use)?)

The reason the Administration is hiding truth about drones is that they don't have a satisfactory answer for how decisions about drone strikes are made.  As we have known all along, we need the public to think about how crummy the whole drone program is, and then they will be ready to be on our side. The best way to get them really thinking is to shine a spotlight on the secrecy, evasiveness, and deceit involved in the U.S. drone program.

(See Drone Killings: Come Clean )

An Insider's Guide to the 7 S's (surveillance, secrecy, and assassinations) in the 2014 Midterms: linchpin races, scandal, principle, drone testing, and some "special" cases.

(See Will the 2014 Midterms be a Referendum on Obama's Surveillance, Secrecy, and Assassinations?)

When THE PEOPLE Take Control: "Anything Can Happen"

I was sitting listening to Russia's Mariinsky Orchestra perform Stravinksy's Rite of Spring last night in Chicago.  The first time this music was performed, there was a riot in the theater. I guess that's what great art should do -- provoke us! Enough of the same old, same old -- we need a revolution!  How come nothing like that every happens around here?

As I continued to listen, turning over in my mind the events of recent days and weeks, I wondered: what if the rumblings are there and we're not hearing them?  What has been happening?  Are we distracted by the news story du jour? (In these first days of October, 2013, that would be the government shutdown.)

The music thundered and I thought of some of the scenes of 9/11 in a film I saw a few days ago: Out of a Clear Blue Sky. That was terrifying.

I thought of Seamus Heaney, who passed away a few weeks ago. His poem, "Anything Can Happen," seemed to allude to 9/11:

Across a clear blue sky. It shook the earth
And the clogged underearth, the River Styx,
The winding streams, the Atlantic shore itself.
Anything can happen, the tallest towers

Be overturned, those in high places daunted,
Those overlooked regarded. . . .

And then I thought: is it right in front of our eyes? Has something big happened?

In the past several weeks, the President of the United States tried to undertake an attack against a foreign country, but the American people said "Hell no!" and the Congress let the President know they couldn't support it. How often does that happen?

Stropped-beak Fortune
Swoops, making the air gasp, tearing the crest off one,
Setting it down bleeding on the next. 

A long-time adversary of the U.S. -- Russia -- put forward an unexpected alternative to fighting, and the U.S. immediately recognized that it had to try it. How often does that happen?

Ground gives. The heaven’s weight
Lifts up off Atlas like a kettle-lid.

Another long-time adversary of the U.S. -- Iran -- said, in effect, "C'mon, let's put an end to all the talk of a showdown and start relating to each other like normal countries." And the U.S. immediately recognized that it had to give that a try. And how often does that -- well, you see where I'm going . . . .

Capstones shift, nothing resettles right.
Telluric ash and fire-spores boil away.

So. Let's not be in such a hurry to stop being amazed.  Let's not go back to our evening news shows and video games and iPods too quickly. Let's dwell in this moment just a while longer and ask ourselves, "What does this mean?" For it certainly would be a thunderous realization to see that, when THE PEOPLE take control, anything can happen.


Related posts

Is this the perfect moment for all of us to step outside our comfort zones? I've started to think: maybe we can encourage many more people to see things in a new light. Maybe this is the meaning of a "mass movement" -- a large number of people moving a little, rather than just a few people moving a lot.

(See Read a Poem - or Eat a Peach - for Peace)

Five big realizations I'm taking away from the 2013 CODEPINK Drone Summit "Drones Around the Globe: Proliferation and Resistance" in Washington, DC.

(See The 2013 DC Drones Conference: 5 Big Takeaways )

There's a lot more to Iran than we've been exposed to by the U.S. foreign policy narrative.

(See Feb 4 - Resources about Iran )










For the full text and more on "Anything Can Happen," see In Chicago, Anything Can Happen.

Zombie Alert! (How Government Secrecy Seduces Congress to Support War)

Rep. Thomas Massie

I saw Rep. Thomas Massie (R, KY) on TV last night and he gave a convincing explanation of why Congress always ends up supporting the President's wars.

During a segment on the Campaign for Liberty Conference on the Russian news channel RT -- the irony of which I will address in some future blog post! -- they showed a clip of Massie explaining how it works:

Step 1: Members of Congress get constituent input telling urging them to vote against war.

Step 2: The member lets it be known that s/he is a "no" or "leaning no."

More on Congressional
zombies and permawar

Step 3: The administration pulls them into a classified briefing.

Step 4: The member turns into a zombie and votes the way the administration wants.

The Ellsberg Connection

This dovetails closely with the description provided by the heroic whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg in the film The Most Dangerous Man in America. In the film, Ellsberg recounts his advice to Henry Kissinger, when Kissinger first went to work at the Nixon White House. Ellsberg hold him that he would be receiving classified briefings, and that a four-step process would ensue:

First, he would feel exhilaration -- to have access to all this "inside" information.

Second, he would feel foolish -- realizing how little he had known all along.

Third, he would begin to view everyone else as fools -- because they don't have the classified briefings.

Fourth, you stop listening.

It was startling to me to hear this at the exact moment the Syria debate was going on, and the administration was starting its arm-twisting in Congress.  For instance, on September 5, I listened to Sen. Diane Feinstein (D, CA) speaking to the press, and explaining that, yes, her constituents were "overwhelmingly negative" about military intervention in Syria, but "they don't know what I know; they haven't heard what I heard" -- i.e. they didn't have the inside scoop that she had because of classified briefings.

Even members of Congress who are critical of the Administration and highly analytic don't seem to fully grasp that it's not enough for the sharing of information to stop with Congress. Take, for instance, the New York Times op-ed "On Syria Vote, Trust, But Verify" by Rep. Alan Grayson (D, FL): his demand for full disclosure is valid ("We have reached the point where the classified information system prevents even trusted members of Congress, who have security clearances, from learning essential facts, and then inhibits them from discussing and debating what they do know. And this extends to matters of war and peace, money and blood. The 'security state' is drowning in its own phlegm.") but he gives the impression that it's enough that he and other members of Congress are fully briefed ("I need to know all the facts").

The U.S. government is addicted to secrecy, and that feeds its addiction to permawar. The only solution is to get the information into the hands of the people.


Related posts

A person may not feel that s/he is another Daniel Ellsberg ... or Paul Revere ... or Otto and Elise Hampel ... or Ai Weiwei ... or Bradley [Chelsea] Manning. But these are heroes we can aspire to emulate.

(See I am (I will become) Bradley Manning )

The Gospels are full of provocations to confront this paradox: people are forever saving up and guarding against a future that is never going to come, while throwing away the present that they do have. ("You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?" Luke 12:20)

(See Edward J. Snowden: The 365-Day Man )

Edward J. Snowden has forced us to confront what we all knew already: our government is running wild and we can't get our privacy back, short of some kind of very extreme change . . . . We have a problem with our government. It sees opportunities for power in every bit and byte of our personal data, and it's time to call it what it is: wrong.

(See Fed Up With Being Spied On )

Isn't now a moment when, instead of falling back into our existing habits of trying to change America's war-making ways, we should put our recent experience under a microscope? And ask what we can learn from this experience? Can we make 2014 the year that we sort the wheat from the chaff in Congress? And get the control over war and peace back into our own hands?

(See Election 2014: The Moment of Truth for the US Antiwar Movement? )

Election 2014: The Moment of Truth for the US Antiwar Movement?

More on Syria: Where Have We Ended Up?

Can we envision a circumstance in which members of Congress lose their seats because of their failures on issues of war and peace? (Not to mention their failures in the basic running of the government?)

If the crisis created by Barack Obama's threat to attack Syria has taught us anything, it is the urgency of having a Congress that controls the power to go to war, and absolute necessity that Congress refuses to go to war without the consent of the people.

I got a close-up of this as I observed the impact of constituent communications on members of the Illinois congressional delegation. It was a real wake-up call for me: there are members of Congress who understand that they represent their constituents, and members who don't.

2014 is a midterm election year. There will be an election for every seat in the House of Representatives. So again I ask: Can we envision a circumstance in which members of Congress lose their seats because of their failures on issues of war and peace?

As someone who has been working day after day to raise the issue of drone warfare, and has experienced frustration over how difficult it is to get the public to pay attention to the problem, I was startled by how engaged and effective the general public was over the threat of war against Syria. "We can make ourselves heard!" I realized.

Isn't now a moment when, instead of falling back into our existing habits of trying to change America's war-making ways, we should put our recent experience under a microscope? And ask what we can learn from this experience? Can we make 2014 the year that we sort the wheat from the chaff in Congress? And get the control over war and peace back into our own hands?


Related posts

There has been a good sign in 2013, in that many people have become outraged about government surveillance. A recent Pew poll found that Americans are now more worried about civil liberties abuses than terrorism. I believe a big question in 2014 will be whether challengers successfully address the issue of NSA surveillance in their campaigns.

(See What Will Election 2014 Boil Down To? )

One issue that has a key place in the midterm elections, I believe, is surveillance.  With each passing day, I am hearing more and more people say that the surveillance issue is something that a wide spectrum of people are deeply upset about. That includes people on the right as well as people on the left -- people who don't usually talk with each other, much less work together for positive change!

(See In Chicago, Illinois: YOU ARE UNDER SURVEILLANCE!)

People in Illinois made it clear they didn't want an attack on Syria.  Based on what I was able to detect, some representatives in Congress were listening, and some weren't:

WAR RESISTER - 2

Looks Strong -7

Question Mark - 4

Looks Weak - 3

WAR HAWK - 2

(See Illinois says "No U.S. Attack on Syria" (Is Congress Listening?) )

In the past several weeks, the President of the United States tried to undertake an attack against a foreign country, but the American people said "Hell no!" and the Congress let the President know they couldn't support it. How often does that happen?

(See When THE PEOPLE Take Control: "Anything Can Happen")

How are we going to change the equation?

More on Syria: Where Have We Ended Up?