http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/18/1066055/-Amnesty-International-on-Libya-again
Sat Feb 18, 2012 at 08:16 AM PST Amnesty International on Libya again<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/18/1066055/-Amnesty-International-on-Libya-again> by Clay Claiborne <http://www.dailykos.com/user/Clay%20Claiborne>Follow<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/18/1066055/-Amnesty-International-on-Libya-again#?friend_id=125110&is_stream=1> Amnesty International was a long standing critic of the Qaddafi regimes' human rights record and last April they wrote about his siege of Misrata: *"The scale of the relentless attacks that we have seen by al-Gaddafi forces to intimidate the residents of Misrata for more than two months is truly horrifying,"* said Donatella Rovera<http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/05/06/idINIndia-56821120110506>, Amnesty International's senior adviser in Libya. *"It shows a total disregard for the lives of ordinary people and is in clear breach of international humanitarian law."* In a report, Amnesty accused Libyan government forces of launching *"relentless indiscriminate attacks"* on residential areas of the city, including the use of 122 mm Grad rockets fired from tens of kilometres away, and by mortars and 155 mm artillery shells. *"Under international humanitarian law, none of these weapons should ever be used in populated residential areas,"* it said. It said it had found evidence of the use of cluster bombs, which spread 'bomblets' over a wide area, killing and wounding indiscriminately. The report cited the deaths of a dozen residents of Misrata when several rocket salvos fell on the Qasr Ahmad neighbourhood. Many of the victims were queuing outside a bakery, it said. Amnesty said pro-Gaddafi snipers were targeting residents in areas under the control of rebels, preventing them from moving around freely. *The Siege of Misrata* Misrata was the Stalingrad of the Libyan Revolution. It is Libya's third largest city, and like the second largest, Benghazi, it went over to the side of the revolution early but unlike Benghazi, it didn't have the natural protection and advantage of a 400 mile line of communication from Qaddafi's base, Misrata is in Tripolitania. Both Qaddafi and the Thuwar knew that the fate of the whole revolution could be decided by the battle for Misrata. Misrata had to suffer <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Misrata> a third month of the type of bombardment described by Donatella Rovera before the encirclement was finally broken in mid-May. Much of this three month siege was staged from the nearby town of Tawergha and men from Tawergha would often volunteer to go on incursions into Misrata because they were given free license to rape and plunder in the rebellious city. Then they would put videos up on YouTube bragging about their exploits. It was not pretty. The number of civilians and defenders killed was 1,083 with another 900 missing or captured and over 4,000 wounded. Cluster munitions, like the one's Qaddafi used on Misrata, are designed to mane more than kill. And about those captured by Qaddafi's forces, Wikipedia adds this note: **Of the missing and captured, 150 civilians were found dead in a mass grave in Tawargha in mid-August[34]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Misrata#cite_note-TVNZ_4355178-33> A lot of bad blood was created between Misrata and Taqwergha in those months. *Payback`s a Bitch* We've all heard this saying and we all know what it means. It's not saying revenge is sweet. It's not even saying that payback is justice. It is saying that payback is a part of the human response to attacks and suppression and in that there may be some rough justice. It should surprise no one that after living for 40 years in a brutal police state which acted so meanly and with so little regard for non-combatants and children, and which had to be put down with such a great loss of life, that all is not yet sweetness and light in Libya today. Transitions take time. The truth is that there has been a certain amount of retribution. Far too much, really. So on the eve of the anniversary of the February 17th uprising, Amnesty International, respected for exposing human rights abuses, without fear or favor no matter who is responsible, came out with another report on such abuses in Libya and this time it is the revolutionaries that are being taken to task. The Washington Post<http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/amnesty-int-libyan-militias-torture-gadhafi-loyalists-uproot-rival-communities/2012/02/15/gIQAOoCYGR_story.html>describe the report: NEW YORK - Armed militias now rule much of Libya, Amnesty International said Wednesday, accusing them of torturing detainees deemed loyal to the ousted regime of Moammar Gadhafi and driving entire neighborhoods and towns into exile. Amnesty International quoted detainees as saying *They had been suspended in contorted positions; beaten for hours with whips, cables, plastic hoses, metal chains and bars, and wooden sticks and given electric shocks with live wires and taser-like electroshock weapons.* At least 12 detainees had died since September after torture, Amnesty said. Their bodies were covered in bruises, wounds and cuts and some had had nails pulled off, the group said. ... *Nobody is holding these militias responsible,* Donatella Rovera, senior crisis response adviser at Amnesty International, told The Associated Press by telephone from Jordan on Wednesday, a day after she left Libya. While even a single death as a result of torture is deplorable, a dozen, after a revolutionary war that cost an estimated 30,000 Libyan lives and was as bloody and meanly fought as this one was, is, frankly, less than one might expect. As the Amnesty report points out: Thousands of people lost their lives fighting to overthrow the government, some slaughtered in groups after they had been rounded up by soldiers. Many of those in today militias suffered under the old regime and saw their friends and relatives die in the conflict; some of them want revenge or to exact vigilante-style justice. There probably are more deaths to be found out and certainly there has been far too much abuse and torture, this is most certainly a problem and a feature of every revolutionary war in its aftermath. I wouldn't want to be a Tory after the American revolution or a French Nazi after the SS was run out of Paris. But this sort of thing is another barrier to liberation the revolutionary people must overcome. One focus of the report is the persecution of people from Tawergha. They document many such abuses: Another challenge is to tackle the widespread discrimination and xenophobia against sub-Saharan Africans and dark-skinned Libyans from Tawargha and other parts of Libya where support for al-Gaddafi forces during the conflict was reportedly high. The 30,000 residents of the town of Tawargha, who were forcibly displaced during the conflict, are still barred from returning to their town, where their homes have been looted and burned down. They remain in poorly resourced camps in Benghazi, Tripoli and elsewhere in Libya and face an uncertain future. So far the NTC has been unwilling to take on the militias and local authorities in Misratah who are determined not to allow the residents of Tawargha to return home. Because most people from Tawargha are black, much has been made of these revenge attacks by some in the pro-Qaddafi and anti-interventionists camps. They see them as racists attacks, pure and simple, and display them as proof that the revolution is "not progressive in anyway." While racism by Arabs against black Africans in Libya is a problem of long standing which I have examined elsewhere, most notably in Racism in Libya<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/12/1015087/-Racism-in-Libya?via=history>, there is reason to believe that the suppression of Tawargha and its people has much less to do with racism than these people think and more to do with simple revenge. Certainly, there is enough reason in the realities of the war immediately past to understand the animosity between these two groups without falling back on any color difference. The descriptions of the abuses in the Amnesty document don't look like racism, in fact many can be read the other way entirely. For example, they describe the abuse a 45-year-old army officer from Tripoli of Tawargha origin while he was being held at a militia's detention facility in Tripoli: [He said] *"They also subjected me to electric shocks through live wires while I was lying on the floor. They put the electricity to different parts of my body including my wrists and toes. At one point I fainted and they threw water at me to wake me up. * He said that he believes that the only reason he was detained was that a colleague reported him to the militia for being of Tawargha origin. Another way to say that is to say that he wasn't detained because he was black, they already knew he was black, he was detained and tortured after they found out that he was from Tawargha. I am in no way trying to justify the mistreatment of Libyans from Tawargha. That has to end and that town eventually has to be restored. I only point this out because so many people on the left are only too happy to brand this treatment racist and use it to condemn the whole revolution. *The "out of control" militias * The headline to be taken from the Amnesty report is its title: Militias Threaten Hopes for New Libya<http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE19/002/2012/en>and that is certainly the focus of the report. The headline used by Reuters on the day before the anniversary was similar to that in hundreds of other news outlets; Libya must rein in "out of control" militias:Amnesty<http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE81F00H20120216> While the Amnesty report focuses on detention and torture it shares a common refrain coming from almost all sides in the international community, in this case, including Russia and China, and it is this: the Libyan militias that won the revolution should be disbanded or absorbed into a national army controlled by the state ASAP before chaos envelopes the country. Most stories along these lines focus on fights between rival militias, and since there have been few of these that have resulted in fatalities, the fear of fights between rival militias that could breakout at any time. I saw one like that on France24 for the February 17th anniversary. The anchor kept going on and on about violence between militias but without any specifics. I kept listening for deaths or injuries and especially some total killed by inter-militia fighting since the fall of Qaddafi without hearing any. I, myself, am aware of 13 people killed in 3 such incidents. Finally the France24 reporter on the ground felt obligated to correct the false impression the anchor had, telling him *"No, this is nothing like Iraq after the war"* and he sounded like he knew from experience what that difference was. The Amnesty report has that same flavor: Lawlessness still pervades Libya a year after the outbreak of the uprising which ended 42 year of Colonel Muâammar al-Gaddafiâs repressive regime. Hundreds of armed militias, widely hailed in Libya as heroes for their role in toppling the former regime, are largely out of control. Their actions, and the refusal of many to disarm or join regular forces, are threatening to destabilize Libya, hinder the much-needed building of accountable state institutions based on the rule of law, and jeopardize the hopes of millions of people who took to the streets a year ago to demand freedom, justice and respect for human rights and dignity. *So just who are these militias and why are they so "out of control?" * The first thing you should know is that these militias are kinda like the Viet Cong. I'm not talking here about ideology or organization, I'm talking about the origins of the name. You see, the revolutionary fighters in South Vietnam never called themselves the Viet Cong, that was a term created by a US psyops officer in 1958 and widely adopted by the media. Similarly the revolutionary brigades in Libya don't call themselves militias, they call themselves revolutionary brigades, and that is also what the revolutionary Libyan government calls them. The Amnesty report goes on to describe these militias and their origin: Hundreds of armed militia groups, established at local levels during the fighting, continue to operate largely independently of the central authorities, often effectively controlling specific areas or neighborhoods. Some militia members have a military background but most were civilians. Militias have established sometimes fluid networks of co-operation. *In other words, these revolutionary brigades are the armed organizations created by the Libya people to take up the armed struggle against the Qaddafi regime and his imperialist supporters. [See my **Arming Gaddafi*<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/24/949030/-Arming-Gaddafi?via=history> * and many other works.] These remain the principal armed organizations of this democratic people's revolution.* They may be *"out of control"* but nevertheless they *"have established sometimes fluid networks of co-operation"* which should sound familiar to anyone in the occupy movement, like it might be horizontal, non-hierarchal, which is not how a national army functions. All of this begs the question, just whose control are they out of? The brigades, for their part, say they aren't interested in disbanding until they know that they are getting the national government they have been fighting for and so far the TNC ain't it. It may also be argued that a certain amount of wanton armed conflict is the price of freedom. The founders of the United States evidently thought so because they enshrined in the constitution the right of the people to form armed militias specifically to protect those freedoms and they had to realize that such an armed population, human nature being what it is, would necessarily result in needless deaths by gun fire. Although there really has been very little violence resulting from hundreds of separate revolutionary brigades, almost everyone in the media, and the diplomats of all the major powers agree, these revolutionary brigades must be broken up ASAP and a proper Libyan national army should be formed. You know, a regular army that can be ordered to invade a foreign country or suppress its own people the way hundreds of "out of control" revolutionary brigades can't. And now Amnesty International agrees, and while they are absolutely correct in investigating human rights abuses by the brigades and demanding their correction, their whole perspective is so tied to a static conception of the "rule of law" that they completely ignore the practical requirements of a revolutionary period. Once you come to the conclusion that just such revolutions will be required to create the very conditions of peace and humanity for which AI longs, you realize the basic flaw in their approach. For example, in this report, the main statue on which they hang the revolutionary brigades is cited as follows: *"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law."* International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 9.1) So how does this work immediately after a revolutionary people have succeed in sweeping the old regime from power? Because, make no mistake about it, the key elements of the old regime cannot be left at liberty to continue their struggle by any means still available to them. There would be hell to pay. They would make counter revolution and many more lives would be lost. Without a doubt, the victorious revolution must, for a while, exercise a dictatorship over the old regime. If they fail to do this they will likely fail all together, because even when the old regime has been defeated militarily, they are in many ways still stronger than the revolution. They still may have superior organization, they have financial resources and international ties that can come to the rescue, they have the forces of custom and habit, an intimate working knowledge of how to run the country and literally a million other advantages over the temporarily victorious revolutionary people. For the people to be able to consolidate their victory, it is absolutely essential that these elements of the defeated regime not be at liberty to defeat the revolution. In the case of a victorious revolutionary war this must be done immediately and throughly even if there are no warrants and nothing we might recognize as due process and even if many innocent people are swept up in it. In the case of revolution, just what "law" would Article 9.1 be referring to, the laws of the overthrown regime, or the laws to be established by the new regime? Because, as a practical matter, if they delay arresting members of the old regime until they've got their legal house in order, they will never get to that point. It is important, however that people not be mistreated while in custody and that their cases are investigated quickly and that they are released when charges against them can't be supported. By most accounts, the Libyans have been making some fair progress at that and thousand of detainees have been released. In Libya, the number of people in custody is going down, one could only wish that were true in the United States. Photo taken February 17, 2012 near Benghazi. Photo credit goes to Esam Al-Fetori/Reuters -------------------------------------------- An Open Letter to ANSWER<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/25/988585/-An-Open-Letter-to-ANSWER> by Clay Claiborne <http://www.dailykos.com/user/Clay%20Claiborne>Follow<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/25/988585/-An-Open-Letter-to-ANSWER?via=history#?friend_id=125110&is_stream=1> So far we have been talking about Libya, NATO, Cynthia McKinney and whether or not my headline No Libyans allowed at ANSWER Libya Forum<http://dailykos.com/story/2011/06/23/987886/-No-Libyans-allowed-at-ANSWER-Libya-Forum?via=blog_511082>was a *faced* lie. Now I want to change the subject. !Not Please look at this video of thousands of people demonstrating against the Syrian government in Hama after Friday pray yesterday. Some estimate the crowds to be as many as 200,000. And this after Assad has killed over a thousand for protesting his rule and more than ten thousand have fled across the border to Turkey. *Can you imagine the courage of these people? How can you deny these people and call yourselves progressive, let alone revolutionary?* Please look at the video. No you must look at it. This is not some weird NATO/CIA psyops, this is the leading edge of the liberation movement today. Ditto Libya. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FByfSsvKVzc ------------------------------------- Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 02:33 PM PDT ANSWER answers me<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/24/988395/-ANSWER-answers-me> by Clay Claiborne <http://www.dailykos.com/user/Clay%20Claiborne>Follow<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/24/988395/-ANSWER-answers-me?via=history#?friend_id=125110&is_stream=1> Share272 permalink<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/24/988395/-ANSWER-answers-me?detail=hide> 6 Comments<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/24/988395/-ANSWER-answers-me#comments> Yesterday I received the following email to my announce-only email list as ANSWER's rebuttal to yesterday's diary No Libyans allowed at ANSWER Libya Forum<http://dailykos.com/story/2011/06/23/987886/-No-Libyans-allowed-at-ANSWER-Libya-Forum?>. Since that list is announce-only, [send email to [email protected]<[email protected]?subject=subscribe>with "subscribe" in the subject line to join] I will publish the ANSWER rebuttal here, together with my response. This is, after all, my diary. The ANSWER rebuttal is the parts in block quotes. They are broken up by my responses, email-reply style, but other than that it is complete and as they sent it. Click here to follow me on Twitter <http://twitter.com/clayclai> Hello: In the spirit of openness and the ability to respond to organizational attacks, I ask that you approve the attached email, which is a response to a slanderous attack by one of your list members, Clay Claiborne, on ANSWER Coalition and Cynthia McKinney. Thanks, Ian Thompson ANSWER Hello all: I strongly disagree with the tone and intentions of this opinion article, written by Clay Claiborne. In the interests of clarity, although I am not a member of all of these email lists, I will respond. Its sympathies appear to lie with those who openly support the U.S./NATO war on Libya. I openly support the people's liberation movement in Libya. Those familiar with my DailyKos blog know I first did so in writing on 18 Jan., months before NATO started bombing. ANSWER on the other hand has never supported the Arab uprising in Libya or Syria. I still support the Free Libya movement even after NATO intervened. My focus is on the Libyan people. They see as the next necessary step in their liberation being rid of Qaddafi. Let's see below what Ian has to say about the Libyan people and their struggle for freedom. So far he only speaks of the U.S./NATO war on Libya. That's his US centered focus. But, political line aside, the article is full of patent distortions, mischaracterizations and shoddy analysis from start to finish. *It's headline and main assertion that there were "no Libyans allowed at ANSWER Libya forum" featuring Cynthia McKinney is a flat-out lie.* I suppose the headline was meant as a false, but catchy "attention grabber" since the writer even admits that several pro-war Libyans participated in the Q and A inside the anti-war event. Facts are stubborn things, and I've already described what I witnessed in my article, and Ian is right about plenty of video, so I'll let the facts speak for themselves. See also: ANSWER thugs bar Libyans from Cynthia McKinney event: report<http://www.ww4report.com/node/10014> Video: Libyans prevented from entering Cynthia McKinney’s talk hosted by ANSWER LA<http://feb17.info/media/video-libyans-prevented-from-entering-cynthia-mckinneys-talk-hosted-by-answer-la/> RAW,"Eyewitness Libya", Libyans prevented from entering Cynthia McKinneys event <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLZUWExdgHU&feature=related> ANSWER Coalition supporters tell Libyans to "go back home"<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9o9GQbfExM&feature=related> First for some context on the event, the Eyewitness Libya Forum sponsored by ANSWER and featuring Cynthia McKinney Los Angeles was a very successful event. It drew over 200 people, and 60% to 70% of those were African Americans. 95% of those who came were anti-war, anti-U.S./NATO intervention. Here's a brief report on the forum on the ANSWER LA website: http://www.answercoalition.org/...<http://www.answercoalition.org/la/news/eyewitness-libya-event.html> The feedback from nearly everyone who came was overwhelmingly positive. Here's an email we got from an Arab American activist in Orange County: "It is the best event I ever attended. The event was really worth out time." He obviously needs to get out more. Making the miniscule number of counter-protesters outside the LA forum into the primary issue in a "report" to progressive people is ridiculous. *The only folks prevented from entering the forum were the few who came specifically to protest and disrupt the event.* It wasn't because they were Libyan. Several Libyans and Arab Americans participated in the event and discussion. Some pro-war, most anti-war. It's too bad that ANSWER couldn't find any "anti-war" Libyans for their nationwide Libya Forums. Are they just a little hard to find so far away from Qaddafi's intimidation? I put the number of Free Libya people at 20 or so. IMHO while they did come to protest they didn't come to disrupt. I should think that ANSWER would be especially sensitive to charging protesters with disruption before the facts. In any case I don't want to argue the facts. I have provided links to videos above so that all can judge their numbers as well as their demeanor. Here I would just like to point out that while most Libyans would see themselves separated into pro-Qaddafi and anti-Qaddafi camps, Ian separates them into pro-war and anti-war camps. In other words, it's not about what Libyans want for themselves, it's about their attitude towards US. *Ian, we are not the focus of their struggle. * Also clearly by *"pro war"* Libyans he is referring to those that are attempting to overthrow Qaddafi. By *"anti-war"* he means Qaddafi and his supporters. What a wonderful way with words he has. In ANSWER terminology, those that have laid siege to Misrata for 4 months with Raf missiles and cluster munitions, those that flatten Ajdabiyah and threaten to do the same in Benhgazi, that's the *"anti-war"* crowd. Those that are happy to see a little relief from the slaughter, even at the hands of NATO, that's the * "pro-war"* crowd. Ian, the world doesn't revolve around you. And let's be clear about another thing, the Libyan civilians killed in this War of Feb17 have overwhelmingly, and I mean overwhelmingly, been killed by Qaddafi. The people who were outside the event, however, were not interested in civil discussion or even debate. They made themselves known at the event before it started by wearing Libya's old pro-monarchy flags, <http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3006/5867702662_9bcd89a12e_z.jpg> So the Free Libya movement is both pro-war and pro-monarchy. You wouldn't be trying to demonize them would you? It is the pre-Qaddafi flag, that's why they fly it. waving American flags at people, I wondered at the time whether they realized that that won't win them any points with this crowd. They are in the United States after all. BTW one good habit I have learned writing for Wikileaks Central<http://wlcentral.org/>is not to use the term "American" when I mean US, because others who share these two continents with us don't like that arrogance. wearing t-shirts featuring King Idris (the former Libyan monarch), and chanting against McKinney before trying to enter the forum. Some of them made threatening statements about McKinney. They chanted that Cynthia McKinney should "burn in the fire" and also made homophobic slurs at the line of college students and volunteers doing security for the event. Just because I didn't see any of this doesn't mean it didn't happen, but check the videos. *Not one of them was against the U.S./NATO bombing of Libya. Not a one.* So far I have seen no support for the revolutionary movement in Libya. Does he think they don't need one because they have Qaddifi? What does he think was going on in the months before NATO got involved? Doesn't matter, it's all about US. That's how you can tell the difference between 'good' Libyans and 'bad,disruptive' Libyans. Just ask them about NATO. It's worth noting that Clay, the writer of this article, was with the pro-intervention crowd during much of the event, despite our invitation for him to put up a table without charge and sell his movie (which he did, I might add). On the public sidewalk outside of the church, and without being charged by ANSWER! Gee, thanks Ian. Others from the pro-intervention camp, those who wanted to participate with the rest of the crowd in a civil meeting, were allowed to participate in the event and speak during Q and A, just like anyone else. And just how did you determine that? *Opposing views were not censored in any way. Several people with divergent views spoke and asked questions.* It is true that the pro-intervention Libyans who spoke, along with Clay, were booed at times by the crowd, but no one from ANSWER was orchestrating that. People at the event just didn't like what they had to say. It's not too surprising for pro-intervention voices to get booed at an anti-war forum. My question to Ms. McKinney was about Qaddafi's use of inaccurate Raf missiles on population centers and HRW reports that said he was using cluster munitions. I said nothing about NATO or intervention, so I was booed because I was anti-Qaddafi, not for being pro-NATO, which I am not. Similarly the Libya who was booed spoke about Qaddafi. That was his concern, not NATO. You may think the only Libya issue at hand is NATO's war on Libya. Not a word is said about Qaddafi's war on Libya because you aren't anti that war. That's why you never spoke out about Libya until NATO came in against Qaddafi. You called it the Libya forum but your only concern is the NATO angle. You don't find it surprising that people including myself, that have been supporting the Free Libya movement months before Qaddafi threatened a bloodbath in Benghazi and gave NATO the excuse they needed, should be booed at a progressive Libya Forum? Just to be clear, there is nothing wrong with keeping people out of an event after they state their intention to protest and disrupt the event. It is unwise and also a security risk. With several high-profile speakers on the panel, security was a top concern. *Also, its a complete fabrication that anyone from ANSWER ever said anything remotely pro-Gaddafi or referred to him as "brother Gaddafi." That just didn't happen. We have the video of the whole forum if you'd like us to prove it.* Your whole event was pro-Qaddafi. At least three of your featured speakers, including McKinney, heaped praise on "brother Qaddafi" What I didn't hear was any support for the uprising in Libya nor did I hear anyone from ANSWER say anything remotely anti-Qaddafi. Cluster munitions in Misrata all right with you? The forum was an anti-war, anti-intervention forum. It certainly wasn't a pro-Libya forum, that would take the focus off of US. Iraq war veteran Mike Prysner spoke against the war on Libya, as did others. Two speakers did espouse their perspective of pan-African unity and expressed their respect for the Libyan leader. Like I said, pro-Qaddafi. They represent valid *[if you say so]* political currents within the Black community. In fact, nearly every speaker has divergent views on one thing or another, but they were all against the war.*[and not against Qaddafi]*We did not censor those who came to oppose the war on Libya at an explicitly anti-war meeting. But you did censor those who oppose Qaddafi. This includes Cynthia McKinney, who has now traveled to Libya twice during the NATO bombing, at great risk to her own life. *[How so? Was she staying in Qaddafi's compound?]* She is not a pro-Gaddafi mouthpiece in any way. She is not being paid by the Libyan government, not even a dime. In fact, part of the reason for the tour is to raise funds to pay back debts incurred by traveling to Libya on these fact-finding missions. Then she should have gone a little more into debt. Traveled outside of Tripoli. Talked to some Libyans not under Qaddafi's control. Debts to who? Who paid for this trip? Inquiring minds want to know. We do know that the Nation of Islam has received millions from Qaddafi<http://www.disinfo.com/2011/04/farrakhans-chicago-mosque-was-funded-by-gaddafi/>so I can understand why they are supporting this tour. Why not? Qaddafi has millions to give. But no money for ANSWER, McKinney? What a shame! *The main thrust of Cynthia McKinney's talk at the Los Angeles forum was for self-determination for Libyans,* So now we get to the question of self-determination for Libyans, very late in this letter and even latter in the forum. But note that "self-determination" doesn't allow them to make their own determination about NATO 'support', in that case ANSWER will determine the proper attitude. *and to urge people in the United States to oppose the U.S./NATO war. As a former elected Congresswoman, her heroism in speaking out against the war on Libya should be lauded, not attacked without cause.* Ian goes on and on... Finally, the "third camp" politics espoused by the article are way off base. They are out of step with people in the U.S.--who polls show oppose the war on Libya 2-to-1--and they are out of step with the people of Libya, who just had a massive 250,000 person march against the NATO bombing this past week, as bombs were dropping around them. Civilian casualties of the NATO bombing are now mounting--even the LA Times and CNN are reporting this. *Despite what the writer would have you believe, the issue isn't one's opinion on Gaddafi--it is the war on Libya, and which side are you on?* Because the war on Libya is like the war on Iraq. There was no uprising in Iraq then so there can't be one in Libya now. It's all about US. Just as the Pentagon and press demonized Saddam Hussein before the Iraq invasions in 1990 and 2003, they have done the same with Gaddafi as a way to confuse people (and in this case, people who move in progressive circles) into being inert and not vigorously opposing the war. We're not pro-Qaddafi but you have no right to call him a mass murderer. The goal of anti-war activists right now seems pretty clear to me--we should be doing everything we can to expose the U.S./NATO war for what it is and building as much support as we can to stop it. There is nothing "humanitarian" about this war--there has never been, nor will there ever be a humanitarian intervention by the U.S., NATO or the UN in their current forms. A short look at history confirms this: Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yugoslavia and so on. For 10 days NATO warned pro-Qaddafi forces against launching missiles into Misrata. They warned, but did nothing to stop him. Today<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-23/nato-led-forces-carry-out-air-strikes-on-qaddafi-loyalists-near-misrata.html>the people of Misrata are cheering because NATO finally blew up the ammo dumps from which the pro-Qaddafi forces [your side Ian] have been raining down missiles on the city. That is what you want to put a stop to. That is more important now than what NATO is doing in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somali combined. Hence this tour. Or could it be that there was someone willing to pay the freight for this tour? This article by Clay does not help build a stronger movement against the war on Libya. But that's not my mission. I am trying to help build a revolutionary movement. I am trying to help the Libyan people oust Qaddafi. Which is to say help build a stronger movement against the Qaddafi war on Libya. It appears to attempt the opposite. It's beyond me why we would chose to spill more ink denouncing ANSWER, an anti-war group, while saying almost nothing against the war on Libya. Unfortunately, the article's tone is nothing new. The now right-wing Christopher Hitchens similarly (but more eloquently) attacked those of us who unequivocally opposed the Iraq war before the catastrophic U.S. invasion and occupation. Look at Hitchens now! That is way out of line! Now you are getting personal and nasty! You can call me all these other names. That's politics and I understand. But to imply that Christopher Hitchens is a better writer than me... You call that civil discourse? He then goes on... In general, it doesn't give anti-war folks more credibility to side with to pro-war forces and go along with demonization campaigns mounted by the U.S. and NATO to justify a war of aggression. Sure, people who are pro-war have the right to be pro-war, but anti-war activists don't have to agree with them or give them a platform on which to speak. The pro-war opinions have been aired ad nauseum in the corporate media. *Meanwhile, the war on the people of Libya continues to rage on. Bombs continue to drop. Civilians continue to die in this unjust war for oil and strategic regional domination. * ANSWER will continue to speak out and organize against the war on Libya. People who want to oppose the war can do so with us. We don't have to agree on everything as long as we oppose imperialist intervention and support the right of oppressed nations and people's to self determination. On July 9, ANSWER and others are organizing a march and rally in Washington, D.C. in front of the White House to demand an immediate end to the war on Libya. One final note, the Eyewitness Libya speaking tour with Cynthia McKinney has drawn hundreds of interested people at each tour stop. It has proven to be an important forum for anti-war voices and organizers from LA to Chicago and beyond. As the bombing of Libya continues, let's hope that more people join the anti-war chorus so that we can bring an end to all U.S. wars and occupations. That should be our goal. Ian Thompson ANSWER Coalition, Los Angeles If you can find the parts of his message that support the Libyan people's struggle please point them out to me. *How do Libyans in Tripoli feel about the NATO bombing of their city? * This video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUys_sztVFM> from LibyaResistance<http://www.youtube.com/user/libyaresistance>may give us a clue. The description reads: In Tripoli, as Nato undertakes its most intense bombing of the campaign, locals come out to show their appreciation by cheering and whistling. Rooftops are full of people watching in appreciation. Later security roamed the streets shooting in the air to silence and intimidate… They should know by now.. Tripoli can never be silence A comment reads: @KernelThread <http://www.youtube.com/comment_search?username=kernelthread>We don't need to rebuild gaddafi's compound. In fact we need help to tear it down. His compound takes up tens of square kilometres and houses his own palaces and security. The OVERWHELMING consensus in tripoli is that we want it to be turned into a green park for EVERYONE to enjoy. So we will be tearing down the buildings anyway. The rest of civilian Tripoli is untouched by NATO. Compare it to gaddafis indiscriminate bombing of misrata - now THAT we need to rebuild! Here are the links to my articles at WL Central: 2011-06-22 No Libyans allowed at ANSWER Libya Forum<http://wlcentral.org/node/1915> 2011-04-13 Doha summit supports Libyan rebels<http://wlcentral.org/node/1652> Current Events in Libya <http://wlcentral.org/node/1625> 2011-03-11 Who's running Egypt? <http://wlcentral.org/node/1452> Libyans are spilling their blood for us all!<http://wlcentral.org/node/1378> 2011-02-24 Arming Gaddfi <http://wlcentral.org/node/1362> 2011-02-14 Senior Egyptian army officers ordered massacre<http://wlcentral.org/node/1298> 2011-02-13 Tales of Tyrants: Ben Ali, Mubarak & Suleiman<http://wlcentral.org/node/1284> 2011-02-12 Algeria Protesters Defy Ban, Demand Change<http://wlcentral.org/node/1277> The Mubarak Screw Up & the Suleiman Danger <http://wlcentral.org/node/1261> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
