November’s “NLG Presents” discussion with peace activists Cole Harrison and Sarah Fuhro seemed to touch a nerve amongst many present. We know the suffering caused by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the immense economic cost, and the damage that bombs dropped on civilian targets have done to the U.S.’ reputation and influence abroad. And at the same time, we wonder why tens of thousands are not in the streets as they were 40 years ago. Coexisting with the violence and waste of war takes a toll on all of us, yet many of us feel powerless to change its course.

In this issue, Harrison confronts the strategic challenges faced by the peace movement head-on, and shows how common cause can – and must – be built with advocates for jobs, education, housing, the environment, as he documents the economic cost of war.

Fuhro highlights the activism of military family members and veterans who know first-hand the costs of war.

NLG Board Member Thom Cincotta describes the Guild’s role in defending – and participating in – civil disobedience against an illegal war, with an overview of relevant international law.

Guild law student at Western New England College Law School Lauren Marcous writes about FBI targeting of anti-war activists, as she describes a recent forum held in Northampton by the Guild WNEC chapter. Cincotta briefs readers on the “material support” law that threatens peaceful international solidarity work.

The discussion in November was passionate, with various views of whether and how mass opposition to the wars can be mobilized. As one veteran activist reminded us afterward, the peace movement in the 1960s did not always look any grander than the peace movement today – it takes a lot of meetings in church basements to end a war.

If you’re looking to get involved, check out the websites of Massachusetts Peace Action, United for Justice with Peace, and the Stop the War Coalition. We hope this will spark more discussion of the Guild’s role in building peace.

- Bonnie Tenneriello and Thom Cincotta -

By Thom Cincotta

Las Vegas Township Judge Jansen will soon decide whether activists who trespassed onto the Creech Air Force Base are not guilty because they acted out of necessity. The Creech 14 entered the base to protest its role in operating unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones, over Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, which have killed hundreds of civilians. Judge Jansen allowed Ramsey Clark, retired Army Colonel Ann Wright, and long-time Guild member Bill Quigley to testify about the need to break the law to prevent future war crimes.1 Likewise, anti-war demonstrators represented by Guild attorney Larry Hildes in Tacoma, WA argued the necessity of using their bodies to block Stryker vehicles returning from Iraq to be repaired at Fort Lewis. There, Daniel Ellsberg testified on the protesters’ behalf.2

These cases demonstrate how Guild members can breathe life into international law to support the anti-war movement and deepen criticism for wars that steal resources from our communities and needlessly destroy lives. Public opinion in the U.S has turned against the war in Afghanistan, but we need to galvanize that opposition by continuing to educate and mobilize.

Though President Obama has frequently spoken of “renewing our commitment” to international law, he escalated military action in Afghanistan. The invasion of Afghanistan has been illegal from its inception, contrary to conventional wisdom that the horrific crimes of 9/11 and the Taliban’s “safe haven” for Al Qaeda justified full-scale war. America’s use of military force to punish, seize, kill, or dismantle Al Qaeda and the Taliban violates the Charter of the United Nations, the Geneva Conventions, and key provisions of eleven international agreements dealing with the suppression and control of terrorism.3 U.S. and NATO actions constitute war crimes pursuant to the Rome Statute, the 2002 treaty establishing the International Criminal Court to prosecute genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.4

The UN Charter prohibits the use and threatened use of any force in member states’ international relations; states must settle their disputes by peaceful means. It prohibits the use of force to topple foreign governments. Article 2 of the Charter prohibits the use or threatened use of forces against another state. The Article 2 prohibition applies to all force and is a rule of customary international law. Professor Francis Boyle reminds us,

Bush Jr. went to the UN Security Council to get a resolution authorizing the use of military force against Afghanistan and Al Qaeda. He failed. You have to remember that. This war has never been authorized by the United Nations Security Council . . . . It constitutes an act and a war of aggression by the United States against Afghanistan.5

Article 51 of the Charter, which defines member states’ right of self-defense, does not create any right to make retaliatory attacks or to engage in the use of force to repel anticipated armed attacks. Former Guild President Marjorie Cohn explains that Operation Enduring Freedom was not legitimate self-defense under the Charter because the 9/11 attacks were crimes against humanity, not armed attacks by another country. Furthermore, there was not an imminent threat of an armed attack on the U.S. after 9/11, and the necessity for self-defense must be “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.”6 President Bush stretched traditional notions of self-defense by assigning the Taliban regime responsibility based on “harboring” Osama bin Laden and his operation.

Not only was the war unjustified, but there is mounting factual evidence that the war is “demonstrably criminal in its execution,” says Canadian military veteran John McNamer. In a brief sent to members of Parliament, McNamer documents substantial allegations of illegal torture; illegal and abusive detainments – sometimes leading to deaths in custody; civilian deaths from bombing and other indiscriminate use of force, and collusion with illegal “renditions” of individuals to and from other countries for purposes of torture.7 All national and international law forbid the killing of non-combatants. Total civilian deaths caused by U.S. led military actions are estimated at 8,991 to 28,583 direct and indirect deaths.8

“The Charter,” explains a treatise in International Law, “is based on the belief that international law should not be enforced by the commission of more crimes.” With every passing day, the U.S. commits more crimes in Afghanistan and the rationales for this war continue to crumble before reality.

Thom Cincotta is a researcher at Political Research Associates in Somerville and a member of the NLG Board of Directors.

___________________
1    Jason Whited, “Vegas drone trial makes history,” Las Vegas City Life (Sept. 14, 2010).

2    Brendan Funtek and Nigel Weiss, “PMR Necessity Defense voided by Tacoma jury,” Works in Progress (Sept. 2010).

3    For a complete listing of relevant authorities, see:  Gail Davidson, “International Law:  The Illegality of the War on Afghanistan,” (Oct. 13, 2001).

4    As of October 2010, 114 states have ratified the treaty.  The United States signed, then withdrew its signature.

5    Francis Boyle, “Is Bush’s War Illegal? Let Us Count the Ways,” CounterPunch.org (Sept. 17, 2002).

6    Marjorie Cohn, “Obama’s Af-Pak War is Illegal,” MarjorieCohn.com (Dec. 20, 2009).

7    John McNamer, “Violation of International Law in Afghanistan, War Vet Tells Troops, PM,” Indybay.org (Feb. 28, 2006)

8    “Civilian Casualties of the War in Afghanistan (2001-present),” Wikipedia.

By Sara Fuhro

There is strong consensus in every branch of the peace movement to link the economic and human cost of war. I belong to Military Families Speak Out, a national organization of families who oppose the wars in which our loved ones are participants. Many Americans have grown accustomed to the endless wars which have extended over the last nine years, yet are deeply concerned about the economy. As military families we see our children, spouses, siblings, nieces and nephews deployed repeatedly, and watch them return to communities devastated by budget cuts. We are deeply aware of the connection between military spending and a failed economy. We are a strong voice, wherever we live to make the connection between endless wars of occupation and the destruction of our social fabric. The focus for our organization has become Bring Our Troops and Military Dollars Home Now!

MFSO has a postcard and petition drive which we will deliver in March at a lobby weekend in Washington. People can join us in this effort by going to our website: www.MFSO.org and sign our petition: Bring our Troops and Military Dollars Home Now!

Veterans also take a lead in this effort. Veterans for Peace and Iraq Veterans Against the War have created the powerful slogan, How is the Military Economy Working for You?

Iraq Veterans against the War have also brought attention to the redeployment of injured soldiers, and have joined with Military Families Speak Out to bring awareness to this continuing disaster. With returning Iraq and Afghanistan veterans at a 23% unemployment level and many veterans homeless within a year of their return from deployment, military families and veterans have a very clear picture of the cost of the our military budget priority.

Military families often desperately need the services now being cut in every state. Children are under stress because one or both parents is missing in deployment. Parents return with serious physical and psychic injuries to families who need the stable environment of schools and clinics. But schools and clinics are cut at the very moment when the home environment is under great stress.

It is no secret to military families and veterans that addiction is part of what soldiers bring back from long stays in combat and occupation duties. Yet rehab centers, addiction counseling, and detox facilities are cut and eliminated in order to keep wars and military contracts well financed.

Another area where MFSO and other peace groups have worked together is the recent attempt to crack down on peace activists. The invasion of homes and offices of those involved in peaceful protest has been noted and letters of solidarity sent to law enforcement agencies. It would be very ironic if the constitution, which our loved ones are sworn to protect is disregarded while they are deployed in faraway wars.

Here’s the good news: this is one war where veterans and military families will not keep silent. For those of us who have opposed these wars and the terrible consequences of war upon our communities and our civil liberties, we will keep these issues front and center. United for Justice and Peace, 25% Solution and other groups have been training people to talk about the military budget. In my community our local peace organization Metrowest Peace Action runs seminars on the subject of military spending and budget deficits. This year we will begin the process of asking our town or city governments to join in the call to Bring our Troops and Military Dollars Home! We already have some examples of this in actions taken by the city council in Portland Maine, and public letters from Mayors in Boston and Northampton. We are also fortunate to have a Congressman from Massachusetts, Barney Frank who has proposed a 25% cut to military combined with a call to reallocate these funds to civilian needs.

Sarah Fuhro is a Board member of Military Families Speak Out.  Her son has been deployed (for more than a year each time) to Iraq and Afghanistan with a medical unit of the Army reserves.  She lives in Natick and is an astrologer and flower essence practitioner.

Support G.I. Resistance and Organizing

• JOIN the NLG MILITARY LAW TASK FORCE •
to support and learn about military law and support for resisters.
Annual dues of $25 include
the MLTF quarterly newsletter and membership e-list.

• SUBSCRIBE to ON WATCH, the MLTF quarterly •
newsletter. Subscriptions are $20.
(Included in Task Force membership.)

• LEARN MORE about problems facing GI’s •
sexual harassment and assault; denial of medical care and benefits;
free speech and protest rights; and veterans rights.
Legal memos available from MLTF.

• SUPPORT your local GI RIGHTS NETWORK •
learn military counseling or provide legal support for the project.
Contact Neil Berman for info, at
617-628-1563 or njberman2@juno.com.

• SUPPORT G.I. COFFEE HOUSES •
by aiding the coffee house support network
(information available from MLTF).

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *    *
MILITARY LAW TASK FORCE
730 N. First Street
San Jose, CA 95112
619-463-2369
info@mltf.info

_____________________________________________

Past Event Photos:
FBI Assassination of Ferd Hampton & Black Panthers

Jeffrey Haas (standing) describes a layout of Mr. Hampton’s apartment, how the police and FBI entered the room and attacked Mr. Hampton and everyone else in the apartment. (l.-r.) King Downing, Geraldine Hines, Soffiyah Elijah, and Michael Avery.

In November, the NLG Massachusetts Chapter, with NLG Police Accountability Project, ACLU, and the NLG Northeastern student chapter, organized a panel discussion on “The FBI and the Murder of a Black Panther.”  The “standing room only” event featured Jeffrey Haas, author of “The Assassination of Fred Hampton,” and welcomed other distinguished panelists Geraldine Hines, Superior Court Judge; Soffiyah Elijah, Criminal Justice Institute at Harvard; King Downing, NPAP; and moderator Michael Avery, Suffolk Law School. (Photos by Brigit Keller)

Jeffrey Haas (front) signing his book “The Assassination of Fred Hampton: How the FBI and the Chicago Police Murdered a Black Panther.” Soffiyah Elijah and Geraldine Hines (back right) engaged in an afterward conversation with event attendees.

NLG Holiday Party

On the first Friday last December, over 70 Guild members and friends converged at Stern Shapiro Weissberg & Garin in Boston to celebrate the NLG Annual Holiday Party.
The event was festive and very enjoyable, filled with inspiring conversations, witty humor, and obviously wonderful food and wine.  It ended with an exciting raffle drawing which left many attendees very happy – the raffle offered a variety of interesting prizes.  ‘Till next time! (Photo by Sara DeConde).

By Cole Harrison

Two years into the Obama era, the antiwar movement is not close to having the power to end the Afghanistan war.

Many assumed an Obama administration would at least moderate the move towards permanent war and domestic reaction which developed during the Bush administration. But the opposite has been the case. Obama has tripled U.S. forces in Afghanistan to 100,000 and greatly increased drone strikes in Pakistan. He declared in November that the Afghanistan war would continue until at least 2014. Guantanamo has not been closed, and a new round of FBI subpoenas was served on antiwar activists in December. Instead of moving to a more peaceful foreign policy, the Administration has embraced military solutions that don’t work.

After nine years, the U.S. public is tired of the Afghanistan conflict, with 63% opposed to U.S. involvement there in a December CNN poll. Yet this antiwar sentiment is shallow. Only 8% of November voters indicated in exit polls that Afghanistan is the most important issue facing the country. Public opinion is swinging against the war, but not fast or strongly enough to end it.

To find new allies, the antiwar movement needs to talk much more about how war and empire are destroying the futures not only of Afghans, but also of Americans. After all, the Afghanistan war alone will cost taxpayers $119 billion in 2011, plus $51 billion for the war in Iraq. The military budget has more than doubled in the past 10 years, reaching $737 billion in FY2011 and consuming over 50% of the federal discretionary budget. Yet social security is on the chopping block, and jobs and health programs are in severe jeopardy. When people start to connect the dots and realize their economic interests are being seriously hurt by wars and the warfare state, it will bring important new allies into the antiwar camp, potentially enough to turn the tide on wars such as Afghanistan.

With more than 10 million jobs lost and a resurgent right wing opposed to stimulating the economy and helping state and local government, the economic picture for the majority of Americans is bleak. In Massachusetts, next year’s budget shortfall is expected to be $1.5-2 billion and to result in draconian cuts in education, health, local aid, and other programs. Boston plans to close 18 schools, and library closings are still on the table. You might think that Governor Patrick and the State Legislature would be asking the Federal government to end the wars, cut military spending, and send the money saved to Massachusetts. But you would be wrong.

Unions, low and moderate income community groups, advocates for jobs, education, housing, environment, and social services, and cities and towns, all have an interest in cutting back the mammoth share of federal spending that goes to the military and redirecting it to urgent domestic priorities. But many of these groups fear they will lose support if they take on broader issues such as peace, environment, and the like. They fight for their constituents in the state and local political arena, where there are few resources available, while the federal government has most of the money. Engaging in pork-barrel politics to direct military money to their own districts, liberal Democrats in Congress are not held accountable for the runaway growth in military spending. With this approach, the political power to redress national priorities is never brought to bear, the wars continue, and the hollowing out of the U.S. economy continues on its way.

The Massachusetts Fund our Communities / Cut Military Spending 25% Campaign has formed to address this strategic problem. Initiated by peace movement veterans in United for Justice with Peace, the campaign seeks to engage economic justice groups in an alliance to link military spending with state and local budget issues. The campaign and allied groups have already obtained city or town council resolutions in Cambridge, Newton, and Northampton, and a letter of support from Boston Mayor Tom Menino.

In spring 2011, the campaign is organizing budget hearings and speak-outs to coincide with state budget time-lines. The hearings will invite testimony from individuals and organizations hurt by state and local budget cuts, invite congresspeople and their staff, urge them to move money from the Pentagon to community needs, and support fair, progressive tax reforms. The campaign seeks to build locally based groups and coalitions across Massachusetts to keep participants involved and build pressure not only to cut the Pentagon budget and stop the wars, but to direct the resulting funds back to our communities and enact state tax reforms this year.

Cole Harrison is communications coordinator for Massachusetts Peace Action and convenor of UJP’s Afghanistan Task Force.

By Lauren Marcous

In December, the Western New England College chapter, along with Alliance for Justice, American Friends Service Committee and more than one dozen other organizations co-sponsored a talk in Northampton on the growing menace of FBI repression. The event featured a discussion with targeted activist Meredith Aby, a prominent member of the progressive community in the Twin Cities who is a mother, a high school government teacher and a leader in the Minneapolis Anti-War Committee. Following Aby’s talk, Bruce Miller, a civil rights attorney and professor, provided attendees with information on how to handle a visit from the FBI. Aby and Miller shared the chilling details of FBI raids on peace activists that took place on September 24th, 2010, the equally chilling legal ruling upholding the “material support of terrorism statute” (see article on page 9 for details), and what can be done to fight back against the FBI’s repressive regime.

Meredith Aby, Minneapolis Anti-War Committee leader, speaks out about the FBI raids that took place on September, 24, 2010 and the grand jury subpoenas that were served to 14 activists that day.

Aby and the other activists who are being targeted by today’s FBI are unsurprisingly similar to the targeted political dissidents of the past. They are loudly speaking out against U.S. foreign policy during a time of war and attempting to hold the U.S. government accountable for their imperialistic exploits across the globe. Although these are protected activities under the First Amendment, ever since the Supreme Court’s ruling in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project in June of 2010, the attack on freedom of association and political speech has heightened. Aby pointed out that if the current material support statutes were in place during Obama’s college years, he may have been subjected to criminal investigation for his advocacy on behalf of Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress. Aby believes this an important story in fighting back against the FBI’s continued attacks on civil liberties. “We need to make these connections . . . [that] disagreeing with your government does not make you a terrorist.”

Both Aby and the Guild attorneys who are defending those who have been subpoenaed believe this investigation is a test case for the Department of Justice to see how far they can extend the material support of terrorism statute. In response to this attempt to revive the witch hunts that became commonplace in the dark era of McCarthyism, Aby says “we have a responsibility to defend our movement. We have a responsibility to push back and say ‘this is a ridiculous waste of resources and this doesn’t make us safe.’” She suggests that activist groups stand together in solidarity against these egregious violations of First and Fourth Amendment rights by starting or joining a local chapter of the Committee to Stop FBI Repression. By signing the petition to end FBI repression online at stopfbi.net, emails stating opposition to the FBI investigation of activists will automatically be sent out to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Barack Obama, and other key politicians who hold seats on relevant congressional committees. Responding to and participating in the Committee’s national calls to action is also a critical way to build political pressure and being an end to the FBI’s repressive tactics.

Lauren Marcous is a 2L at Western New England College School of Law and President of her school’s NLG student chapter.

Mere months after Citizens United struck down restrictions on corporate speech, in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. ___ (2010), the Roberts court ruled that the First Amendment permits Congress to imprison human rights activists for up to fifteen years merely for advising militant organizations on ways to reject violence and pursue their disputes through lawful means. The court upheld Section 303 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which makes it a crime to knowingly provide “material support or resources” to a designated terrorist organization, even when the speech support consists only of speech advocating peace and human rights. Lower courts had struck down the provision as unconstitutional, but the Obama administration (represented by Elena Kagan) appealed.

Specialists in peaceful conflict resolution and disaster relief who wanted to interact with the Kurdistan Workers Party and Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam challenged the terms “training,” “expert advice or assistance,” “service,” and “specialized knowledge” as unconstitutionally vague. The KWP and LTTE engage in a variety of both lawful and unlawful activities and are designated as terrorist organizations by the Secretary of State.

Under this law, advising Hezbollah while monitoring elections in Lebanon or publishing Op-Eds by Hamas leaders would be criminal. In the past, the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment protected the right to advocate even criminal activity, so long as advocacy was not intended and likely to produce an imminent crime. In Humanitarian Law Project, says civil rights attorney David Cole, “the Court ruled for the first time in its history that speech advocating only lawful, nonviolent activity can be subject to criminal penalty.”1

As Cole explains, the court reasoned that speech advocating peace might “legitimate” a listed group, thereby interfering with U.S. foreign policy. Chief Justice Roberts even speculated that advising an organization on how to file human rights complaints might permit the group to use the law to “threaten, manipulate, and disrupt,” and helping a group pursue peace might give it cover to prepare for its next attack.2 Roberts stressed that the law only reached speech “coordinated” with listed groups, not independent advocacy or speech coordinated with domestic groups.

– Thom Cincotta -

________________
1    David Cole, “The Roberts Court vs. Free Speech,” New York Review of Books (Aug. 19, 2010).

2    This reasoning sounds precariously close to right-wing arguments that Israel is under attack by “Lawfare” – human rights groups’ use of international law to challenge abuses and war crimes in occupied territories.  See The Lawfare Project.

NLG ANNUAL MEETING
This year’s meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 15, 14 Beacon St., Conference Rm.  We will start with a reception at 5:30pm and continue with elections of Chapter Board and officers.  After the elections, we will welcome Patty Garin of Stern Shapriro Weinsberg & Garin who will talk about the crisis and future of parol in Massachusetts.

NOMINATIONS TO THE 2011 NLG BOARD
If you would like to serve on the Chapter’s Board of Directors, please consider nominating yourself.  The deadline for all nominations is Tuesday, March 8 (International Women’s Day!).  Please complete the form here or send us your name and contact information (nlgmass-director@igc.org or 617-227-7335).

NLG HAPPY HOUR
The Massachusetts Chapter’s NLG Presents… & Happy Hour takes place on the 2nd Wednesday of every month, 5:30 – 8:00pm, at Kennedy’s Mid-Town Pub (44 Province St., 2nd Fl., Boston, close to Suffolk Law School).  Next “NLG Presents…” & Happy Hour will be on February 9, 2011 (see below).

________________________________

NLG Presents…..

Michael Rodriguez
“Freedom for Oscar López Rivera, Puerto Rican Political Prisoner! ”

Wednesday, February 9, 2011
5:30 – 6:30 PM
Kennedy’s Midtown
44 Province St., 2nd Fl., Boston
(next to Suffolk Law School, off Bromfield St.)

Michael Rodriguez will speak about the campaign to free Oscar López Rivera. Oscar will appear before the U.S. Parole Commission the first week of January 2011. Oscar was not accused or convicted of causing harm or taking a life, yet he has become the longest held political prisoner in the history of Puerto Rico’s struggle against colonialism. He was arrested in 1981 and sentenced to 70 years for the crime of seditious conspiracy. For more information on this case, go to: http://boricuahumanrights.org.

________________________________

Street Law Clinic Report
The following Guild members conducted (or are scheduled to conduct) trainings for law students and/or clinics for members of Boston area community organizations and agencies:
December 9:   Stop & Search training for Harvard law students, by Carl Williams.
December 16:   Stop & Search clinic at Bridge Over Troubled Waters, by David Nathanson and NESL student Liz Funk.
December 16:   Immigration Law  clinic at The Kennedy Center in Charlestown, by Rosie Milano.
January 10:   Stop & Search clinic at Cambridge Cares about AIDS: Youth on Fire, by Carl Williams, NESL student Liz Funk and Harvard students Stephanie Dorenbosch and Diana Philip.
January 31:   Stop & Search training at Rodger Williams Univeristy Law School in Bristol, RI, by Benjamin Evans.

ARTICLES FOR MASS DISSENT
The March issue of Mass Dissent will focus on the women in law and politics.
If you are interested in submitting an article, essay, analysis, or art work (cartoons, pictures) related to the topic,
please e-mail the articles to nlgmass-director@igc.org.
The deadline for articles is February 15.