Of course, we are very concerned about the horrific humanitarian crisis there, the allegations of chemical weapons use (by the Assad government? the rebels? both? we just don’t know), Israel’s illegal bombing of alleged Syrian weapons sites (perhaps also meant as a warning to Iran?), and possible covert action or arming of rebel factions by the U.S. or its allies.

However, to date, the Obama Administration has wisely not proceeded with establishing a “no fly zone” or other direct U.S. military escalation, and there is at least hope for an international/regional peace conference led by the U.S. and Syria’s main ally, Russia. Such a conference should include other key countries in the region, including Iran (France opposes Iran’s inclusion).

Such a conference should address a wide array of concerns – an immediate cease fire, an agreement to stop arming all sides in the conflict, access for United Nations inspectors to investigate conflicting claims of chemical weapons use, accountability for Israel’s illegal bombing, a possible Syrian national unity government, establishment of a weapons of mass destruction-free zone in the region and other national, regional and international concerns.

Our goal here is not, however, to present some sort of ten point peace plan, but to push back on reckless calls for war or military escalation.

Tell the president, “we need to escalate the talk, not the war.” Please sign our petition, and feel free to add your own thoughts, and to forward it to your friends and family.

Humbly for Peace,

Kevin Martin
National Exec. Director
Peace Action

Drone Wars:
The Constitutional and Counterterrorism Implications of Targeted Killings
April 23, 2013 | 4pm
Senate Hart Office Building 216

Board Member Michael Lynn composed the following statement for submission to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights chaired by Senator Dick Durbin:

Chicago Area Peace Action (CAPA) would like to thank Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Cruz and Members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to address this critical issue.

The topic of targeted assassinations, in the form of drone attacks, is a very timely one. Recent revelations buttress the opinion of CAPA that targeted assassinations and drone strikes, as U.S. military and intelligence units are currently carrying them out, are illegal under the U.S. Constitution and international law. We further hold that such actions violate not only moral conscience, but also the accepted norms for civilized societies. We would further submit that such actions have had a corrosive effect on the status of the U.S. as a nation governed by laws and have negatively impacted the standing of our nation as an example for the rest of the world.

We would like to examine each of these points in turn.

Click here for a PDF of the entire statement or continue reading.

I.    Legal Concerns

Although the Obama administration continues to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of its drone strike program, many of the outlines of the program and its policy framework are well known. Strategic leaks to the press have made much of the U.S. public aware of the ‘kill lists’ that President Obama personally reviews and approves on Tuesday mornings.  We know that the legal guidelines governing these acts are very broad and rather ill defined. The President has claimed the right to target anyone, including American citizens, for assassination anywhere in the world at any time at his sole discretion. Attorney General Eric Holder reinforced just how broad this power is taken to be in a recent letter to Senator Rand Paul. In response to a query from Paul as to whether the President claims the right to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike against an American citizen on American soil, the Attorney General replied in the affirmative.

This breathtaking assertion makes crystal clear just how far out on a legal limb the Administration has gone. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

The power of the state to deprive a citizen of life is the most awesome power the state wields. The manner in which such decisions are made is a matter of supreme importance. While no one would question the President’s ability to conduct war as he sees fit, targeted assassinations are currently being carried out in nations with which the U.S. has no declared hostilities. As stated above, the highest law enforcement officer in the land has declared that the President claims the right to act as judge, jury and executioner for anyone, even American citizens, anywhere in the world, including on American soil. All of this is being done with no transparency and no accountability. CAPA would submit that this policy not only stands in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but also represents a gross legal overreach on the part of the Executive branch. We join with columnist and Constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald in stating, “If you believe the president has the power to order US citizens executed far from any battlefield with no charges or trial, then it's truly hard to conceive of any asserted power you would find objectionable.”     

The Obama administration has repeatedly claimed that its drone strikes target only known senior leaders of al Qaida and allied groups. A recent report by McClathcy national security correspondent Jonathan Landay, “Obama’s drone war kills ‘others,’ not just al Qaida leaders,” shows that claim is simply untrue. Classified documents obtained by the papers show the strikes “have targeted and killed hundreds of suspected lower-level Afghan, Pakistani and unidentified ‘other’ militants in scores of strikes in Pakistan’s rugged tribal area.” The report quotes Micah Zenko, an expert from the Council on Foreign Relations, that the administration is “misleading the public about the scope of who can legitimately be targeted.”

Furthermore, the piece reports that “drone operators weren’t always certain who they were killing despite the administration’s guarantees of the accuracy of the CIA’s targeting intelligence and its assertions that civilian casualties have been ‘exceedingly rare.’” It is widely known that the U.S. is using so-called ‘signature strikes,’ wherein people are targeted for assassination based upon their patterns of behavior, without knowing their identities or affiliations. The criteria used to trigger these attacks remains unknown. The reliability of targeting information was a key cornerstone of the legal basis for drone strikes offered under the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force. The use of such wide-ranging and anonymous targeting violates even that flimsy legal fig leaf.    

Nor do such extreme measures pass muster under international law. After a three-day fact-finding mission to Pakistan in March of this year, the United Nations terrorism and human rights envoy issued a statement calling drone strikes in Pakistan a violation of international law. He observed, “The position of the government of Pakistan is quite clear: It does not consent to the use of drones by the United States on its territory and it considers this to be a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty and human rights.” At a time of heightening international tensions, what credibility will the U.S. have in calling on other nations to observe international law when it is itself in violation?

      II.         Moral and Normative Concerns

It isn’t only legal concerns that underlie our objections to targeted assassinations and drone strikes.  Targeted assassinations have long been regarded as anathema to the ideals of a civilized society. In the past, the U.S. has rightly condemned this practice.

President Obama has routinely referred to the religious doctrine of just war theory in attempting to justify U.S. drone attacks. But this justification fails on a number of points. In most accepted formulations of just war theory, violence can be directed only against belligerents and not against innocent civilians. As has become apparent in the last few years, the U.S. drone program is killing far more civilians than the Obama administration has claimed. Not only that, but the supposedly ‘high level’ al Qaida operatives that are claimed as victims are far outnumbered by civilians. A Stanford Law School/New York University School of Law study shows that fewer than two 2% of those killed by American drone strikes are ‘high-level’ targets.

The report further finds that the number of civilians killed is not the zero-to-very-few that the administration claims. Indeed, the study shows that U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan kill almost 50 civilians for every known terrorist. Those figures include only deaths that can be established to a high degree of certainty.

More horrifying, much of this carnage seems to be intentional. The U.S. is known to employ so-called ‘double-tap’ strikes where a target is hit a second time immediately following the initial strike, killing and wounding first responders. Surely no theory of just war can support the use of force that results in such massive collateral carnage while doing so little to deter any potential attack.

Nor can it be shown that drone attacks are effective in preventing an attack on the U.S. that is ‘imminent,’ as just war theory requires. The simple fact that these attacks are so ineffective in hitting the putative targets — high-level al Qaida officials — shows that this test is not met.

        III.        Corrosive Effects on the Nation

It should by now be quite obvious that, far from achieving its goal of making Americans safer, the drone program is having exactly the opposite effect. Afghans and Pakistanis not only see their loved ones and friends killed and injured in drone attacks launched by the U.S., they live with the constant dread that comes from knowing that death can rain down upon them from the sky at any time without warning. It does not take much imagination to conceive of the reactions to living in such circumstances: intense hatred of the perpetrator and the desire to seek revenge and remove the threat. It would appear obvious that drone attacks are the best possible recruiting tool we could offer terrorist groups.

The negative effects of drone attacks do not stop at our shores. At home we face a government that operates largely in the dark, without the knowledge or consent of the people. The administration continues to refuse to acknowledge or deny the existence of a drone program the entire world knows about. With each new revelation of lies and cover-ups, our government becomes more and more opaque and goes to ever-greater lengths to protect its secrets. An administration that came to office promising to be the most transparent in American history has now prosecuted more American whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than all other administrations in U.S. history combined. The existence of poorly conceived programs like targeted assassinations and drone attacks inevitably leads to a diminution of democracy and an increase in abuse of power and corruption.

IV.    Conclusion

It should be clear from the preceding that Chicago Area Peace Action is strongly opposed to the policy of U.S. targeted assassinations via drone attacks. We believe that this policy is indefensible, both morally and legally, and makes the country more vulnerable, not less. We call on Congress to reclaim their powers of oversight. We ask this Subcommittee to press the administration to release more information about both the program’s legal basis and the methodology used in targeting individuals. The administration needs to be held responsible to answering for the extremely credible reports of widespread civilian causalities. The American people need an answer as to why the administration is targeting a much wider range of individuals than the senior al Qaida officials it claims. Most of all, the American people deserve the information they need to decide whether this is a program worthy of great nation and whether this is a program they can support in good conscience.

If poverty and homelessness are both increasing, and are un-addressed by society, then it should not be surprising that members of these groups are finding new ways of meeting their basic needs. Some homeless are finding shelter underground, either inhabiting already existing tunnel systems, or in some cases digging their own. In Kansas City, a group of tunnels dug by homeless has recently come to light. It appears that children lived in the tunnels along with adults. In Las Vegas, there is a group of approximately 1,000 "tunnel people" living in flood tunnels beneath the city. In New York there are homeless living in subway tunnels. The news focus on the stock market, or on government debt, tends to sideline the trend toward more poverty.

Hat Tip @fabiusmaximus01.

Visitation: Thursday, April 11
4-9pm
John E. Maloney Funeral Home
1359 West Devon Avenue
Chicago

Memorial service: Friday, April 12
4pm
Wellington Avenue United Church of Christ
615 West Wellington Avenue
Chicago
In lieu of flowers, donations can be sent to Wellington Avenue Church or AFSC Midwest Regional office.

Message from CAPA Board President:

On a personal note, I have been missing Michael's quiet strength and innovative wisdom for over a year now — but somehow harbored the hope that all of that would return. Sadly, it will not.

When I  became involved with North Suburban Peace Initiative (NSPI) in 2002, one of the very first people I met doing peace and justice work was Michael McConnell. We worked together on a 12/23 march from St. James Church to the Tribune Tower in single-digit weather. When the 3,000th US casualty in Iraq occurred, we stood together over hundreds of candles displayed for the cameras in the shape of the number 3,000. On the first anniversary of the war, we marched alongside a horse-drawn hearse to rally in Grant Park. And when we won a local city council battle to open a free speech display space in downtown Highland Park, we did it in order to display the "boots" and the then 1,800 names of the US fallen.

Every single time I wanted to gain clarity on an action or a position, Michael McConnell was there. He was never put out to hear from me. No question or idea was every too simplistic or too outrageous. He answered and he suggested with care, understanding, and wisdom. He taught me the value of consensus, as tedious as that process can be.

I will miss him dearly.
David Borris

CLICK HERE to listen to Michael in Shannon Heffernan's piece for WBEZ.

Obituary by Michael's wife Maricela:
Michael McConnell, 66, of Chicago IL died April 7, 2013. He held a Masters of Divinity from McCormick Seminary. He was the Midwest Regional Director for American Friends Service Committee and a published writer. He dedicated his life to building peace and social justice. He is survived by his wife Maricela Garcia and his children Sarah, Daniella, and Camilo John.

AFSC Bio:
Michael McConnell was Regional Director of the American Friends Service Committee based in Chicago. He was co-creator of "Eyes Wide Open: A Memorial to the Human Cost of the Iraq War," which consists of one pair of combat boots for each U.S. soldier and marine killed in the war. He coordinated the Chicago Religious Task Force on Central America, the organization that coordinated many aspects of the U.S.-based Sanctuary Movement from 1982-1988.

An ordained minister of the United Church of Christ, Michael co-authored Sanctuary: The New Underground Railroad (1985), Dangerous Memories: Invasion and Resistance Since 1492 (1992), and a multicultural people's history of the United States, titled Lost Voices.

Last week was the anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq War. For friends and family members of the thousands of Americans and allies killed or wounded in that struggle, or of the tens of thousands of Iraqis killed, wounded or displaced, it probably wasn't a happy one.

We don't know whether these people expected or required an apology from the war's advocates in the media.  …

Rightbloggers, who don't have to even pretend to have consciences, generally had more options.  …

Some bailed, but belligerently, from their earlier zealousness. Back in 2002 Daniel Pipes was so enraged by anti-war professors that he wrote, "the time has come for adult supervision" and called for "outsiders… to take steps to create a politically balanced atmosphere, critique failed scholarship, establish standards for media statements by faculty and broaden the range of campus discourse." In 2006 he called the war a success and said, "I continue to be in favor of the campaign to eliminate the rule of Saddam Hussein, with all the dangers to the Iraqis, to the region and to ourselves." In 2007, though, his feet got a little cold; "The occupation is lost but the war can be won," Pipes said. "Keep U.S. troops in Iraq but remove them from the cities… President George W. Bush is right to insist on keeping troops in Iraq. In part, America's credibility is on the line."

Last week, Pipes donned his love beads and longhair wig and told whoever still listens to him that "George W. Bush naïvely convinced himself and others that Iraq could be free and prosperous and even a model for the region. He then led a trillion-dollar effort that cost thousands of lives and came up woefully short… This should offer a pointed lesson for future temptations to 'nation build.'" If the next Republican president just yells HULK SMASH on TV and pushes a big red button, we won't have these problems.

Seriously, read the whole thing.

Roy's handle on Twitter is @edroso. His facebook page is here. His fantastic blog is "Alicublog".

(Warblogger image by the always-amazing Tom Tomorrow. Twitter handle @tomtomorrow.)

lllinois: Call your state reps & senators and ask for a moratorium on Fracking!

The dangerous form of mining known as "fracking" (hydraulic fracturing) is coming to southern & central Illinois, unless the people can stop it! The oil and gas industry, flush with cash and hungry for natural gas, is preparing to frack Illinois, and needs the State Government's blessing to contine. The government, charged with protecting natural resources and environment, may allow this disastrous practice because they are incorrectly convinced of its safety, or understandably afraid to stand in the way of a powerful industry.

Currently, the Illinois House is considering an inadequate, unenforceable "regulatory" bill, HB2615. Please call your state representative and ask that they vote against HB2615. Here is a link to help you find your state representative, and here is more information on this utterly inadequate bill HB2615, "HYDRAULIC FRACTURING REG ACT".

In the IL Senate, there is a good bill, SB1418, that demands a moratorium on fracking. Please call your state senator and ask that they vote in favor of SB1418. Here is a link to help you find your state senator, and here is more information on the responsible and necessary senate moratorium bill SB1418, "HYDRAULIC FRACTURING BAN"

SAFE (Southern Illinoisians Against Fracturing Our Environment) is a leading group pushing for a moratorium on fracking in Illinois. Please visit their website for more information, or to learn how to contact and support them http://www.dontfractureillinois.net/contact-us/

What is "Fracking"? Why is it dangerous? Why do people want it in Illinois?

Hydraulic Fracturing, a.k.a. "Fracking", is a highly polluting form of mining that's designed to extract natural gas from underground shale rock, such as the New Albany Shale below southern and central Illinois. A site for a wellhead is chosen, and then a shaft is drilled straight down into the earth until a layer of shale is hit. The drill is then turned ninety degrees and the shaft continues horizontally, potentially for miles. A "fracking fluid" consisting of water mixed with toxic chemicals, sand, and other materials is then forced at high pressure into the shaft, causing the shale rock to crack and release methane (natural gas) which is recovered at the wellhead.

Fracking can be damaging to the water, the air and the earth. First of all, a given well requires approximately three million gallons of fluid for a given frack. A single well is generally fracked about ten times. Assuming a density of wellheads similar to that in Pennsylvania, this means that if southern and central Illinois were to be fracked the process would require up to a trillion gallons of water! [1] After this water was used, recovering it for drinking or agricultural use would be a dubious proposition at best. It would be toxic waste.

There have also been documented instances where the fracking fluid contaminated underground reservoirs [2]. In addition, fracking can pollute the air in numerous ways, most notably from gases venting at the wellhead and from the fracking fluid itself. After it is no longer useable, a well can potentially vent the greenhouse gas methane into the atmosphere for years, contributing to global warming. Finally, it has been suggested that fracking can induce seismic activity, creating earthquakes. It should be noted that southern Illinois has two fault lines.

The most common argument for allowing fracking into Illinois is that it will create jobs in economically depressed areas. It is inarguable that at least some jobs will be created around this activity. However, in a study done on ten counties in Pennsylvania and New York, it was shown that a given wellhead actually creates about 1.7 jobs, and in fact one of these jobs is likely to be for an out of state fracking expert [3]. The local jobs created tended to be temporary and dangerous work such as the transportation of the fluid.

In the end, therefore, it is likely that if the oil and gas industry commences fracking in southern and central Illinois, it will create a short-lived boom while the activity lasts. However, the shale will be fracked out eventually and then the boom will go bust. And when it goes bust, it will leave a polluted landscape that may no longer be suitable for tourism or agriculture. It will also leave a population of citizens who have more than usual health problems [4]. Despite its economic attraction, therefore, fracking should not be allowed in Illinois. Please ask your state representative to vote against HB2615, the inadequate and unenforceable regulatory bill, and ask your state senator to support SB1418, the moratorium bill. And check out the SAFE (Southern Illinoisians Against Fracturing our Environment) website to learn more!

[1] "Only Fools Trade Our Water for Oil", editorial, The Southern Illinoisian, by Richard Fedder, Nov. 13, 2012

[2] "Hydrocarbon spill confirmed north of parachute", Denver Post, by Bruce Finley, March 16, 2013

[3] "Exposing the Oil and Gas Industry’s False Jobs Promise for Shale Gas Development: How Actual Employment Data Show Minimal Job Creation", study, Food and Water Watch, Nov. 15, 2011

[4] "List of the Harmed", blog post, Pennylvania Alliance for Clean Water and Air, an ongoing list of people who claim health effects from fracking.

Investing in future profits by buying lands from southern Illinois farmers, and by exerting its political muscle at the county level, the gas industry has been preparing to frack the Illinois shale for more than a year. But in the State House, at least, the process has so far contained unexpected obstacles. Chief among these is Representative Mike Madigan, the powerful Illinois Speaker of the House, who unexpectedly decided in May 2012 to back a a one-year moratorium on fracking in the state. This decision must have been frustrating for the industry, and the question of Madigan's motives has surely been asked. Was he concerned about the environmental effects of fracking? Or merely playing politics? Madigan made apparently pro-moratorium statements again on March 12, 2013.

And while Madigan represents one obstacle, another is the citizen's movement which opposes fracking as an attack on the environment. While politically weaker than elected officials, a movement may represent a longer-term danger to an industry — public sentiment cannot be ignored. Led by the groups SAFE – Southern Illinoisians Against Fracturing our Environment, and ICMF – the Illinois Coalition for a Moratorium on Fracking, on March 12, 2013, more than one hundred anti-fracking activists — southern Illinois landowners, environmentalists from the Chicago area, and concerned citizens from the entire state — descended on Springfield, demanding a moratorium on this ecologically damaging practice. Lobbying elected officials, putting on a dramatic press conference in the Capitol building, and sharing stories of resistance to the natural gas industry, this loose coalition represented the citizen's response to fracking. The longer term effects of these actions are unknown. Does this coalition have staying power?

UPDATE: March 14th: It appears that Madigan's support of the moratorium bill was largely a means of getting more taxes out of the natural gas industry.

Bradley and other prominent officials — including Attorney General Lisa Madigan — had negotiated with both business interests and environmental groups to agree on the regulations. But as of Wednesday morning, they were still negotiating over what taxes and fees the drillers would pay.

Lo and behold, just hours after the Speaker made his seemingly ominous remarks, they had an agreement. When Rep. Bradley was asked about the timing of Speaker Madigan’s remark, he broke into a big, silent smile …

BRADLEY: “… Well, uh, I’m just happy that we got something done.”