http://www.readersupportednews.org/news-section2/317-65/10569-the-banned-doo
nesbury-abortion-cartoon-part-3

The Banned Doonesbury Abortion Cartoon:
Part 3


By Gary Trudeau, Reader Supported News

21 March 12

 
<http://www.readersupportednews.org/images/stories/rsn_editorcomment_01.jpg>
As we reported back on March 12
<http://www.readersupportednews.org/news-section2/317-65/10388-focus-papers-
refuse-to-run-doonesbury-abortion-law-strip> , Gary Trudeau has done it
again. The intrepid comic strip author has ventured into forbidden political
territory once more, and is banned by many publications again. Here is Part
3 of the banned Doonesbury Abortion Cartoon. -- ma/RSN
<http://www.readersupportednews.org/images/stories/rsn_editorcomment_02.jpg>



 
<http://www.readersupportednews.org/images/stories/article_imgs6/6183-doones
bury-abortion-day3-stacked-032112.jpg> 


Doonesbury's banned abortion series: Day 1
<http://www.readersupportednews.org/news-section2/317-65/10541-the-banned-do
onesbury-abortion-cartoon-part-1>  | Day 2
<http://www.readersupportednews.org/news-section2/314-18/10556-the-banned-do
onesbury-abortion-cartoon-part-2>  | Day 3
<http://www.readersupportednews.org/news-section2/317-65/10569-the-banned-do
onesbury-abortion-cartoon-part-3> 

  _____  

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
Supported News.

***

http://www.readersupportednews.org/opinion2/266-32/10564-focus-afghanistan-a
nd-american-imperialism

Afghanistan and American Imperialism


"Afghan doubts about an exclusively American investigation are surely
inflamed, again understandably, by the history of untruths by the US
military about episodes of violence in Afghanistan. As the war correspondent
Jerome Starkey documented:
<http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgrou
ndid=440>  "US-led forces in Afghanistan are committing atrocities, lying,
and getting away with it."


By Glenn Greenwald, Guardian UK


21 March 12

 
<outbind://186/http://www.readersupportednews.org/images/stories/alphabet/rs
n-U.jpg> S army staff sergeant Robert Bales is accused of slaughtering 16
Afghan villagers, including nine children, and then burning some of the
bodies. The massacre took place in two villages in the southern rural
district of Panjwai. Though this horrific crime targeted Afghans on Afghan
soil, Afghanistan <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/afghanistan>  will play
no role in investigating the crime or bringing the perpetrator (or
perpetrators) to justice. That is because the US almost immediately whisked
the accused out of Afghanistan and brought him to an American army base in
Fort Leavensworth, Kansas.

The rapid exclusion of Afghans from the process of trying the accused
shooter has, predictably and understandably, exacerbated the growing
anti-American anger in that country. It is hard to imagine any nation on the
planet reacting any other way to being denied the ability to try suspects
over crimes that take place on its soil. A Taliban commander quickly gave
voice to that nationalistic fury, announcing: "We want this soldier to be
prosecuted in Afghanistan. The Afghans should prosecute him."

Demands that the atrocity be investigated by Afghans are grounded in part by
reports that Bales did not act alone. While US military
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-military>  officials decreed from the
start that Bales was the lone culprit, eyewitnesses in the villages reported
the presence of multiple attackers. Many Afghans simply cannot fathom how
such a large-scale attack could have been perpetrated by a single shooter.
Bacha Agha of the Balandi village told the Associated Press: "One man can't
kill so many people. There must have been many people involved." He added:
"If the government says this is just one person's act we will not accept
it." President Hamid Karzai initially added fuel to those suspicions,
notably accusing "American forces" of the attacks.

The suspicion that other American soldiers may have been involved, though
unproven, is far from irrational. The notorious American "kill team"
<http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-kill-team-20110327>  that
deliberately executed random, innocent Afghan civilians (often teenagers)
for sport, planted weapons on their bodies, and then posed with their
corpses as trophies operated out a base in the same area. America's former
top commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, admitted
<http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/gen_mcchrystal_weve_shot_
an_amazing_number_of_peop.php> : "We've shot an amazing number of people and
killed a number and, to my knowledge, none has proven to have been a real
threat to the force."

That US-Afghan tensions are at an all-time high due to recent events makes
suspicions of a coordinated attack even more substantive. As Robert Fisk
recalled
<http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-madness-
is-not-the-reason-for-this-massacre-7575737.html> , the US army's top
commander in Afghanistan, General John Allen, went out of his way just a
couple weeks ago to tell his soldiers that "now is not the time for revenge
for the deaths of two US soldiers killed in Thursday's riots" resulting from
the burning of Qu'rans, and he urged his soldiers to "resist whatever urge
they might have to strike back." Clearly, General Allen was concerned about
coordinated military revenge attacks on Afghan civilians.

Afghan doubts about an exclusively American investigation are surely
inflamed, again understandably, by the history of untruths by the US
military about episodes of violence in Afghanistan. As the war correspondent
Jerome Starkey documented:
<http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgrou
ndid=440>  "US-led forces in Afghanistan are committing atrocities, lying,
and getting away with it."

Starkey was writing in the wake of one incident
<http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgrou
ndid=440>  where the American military, thanks to his investigative
reporting, got caught out over the wanton killing of Afghan villagers. In
February, 2010, US forces entered a village in the Paktia Province in
Afghanistan and, after surrounding a home where a celebration of a new birth
was taking place, shot dead two male civilians (government officials) who
exited the house in order to inquire why they had been surrounded, and then
shot and killed three female relatives (a pregnant mother of 10, a pregnant
mother of six, and a teenager).

The Pentagon then issued statements insisting that the dead men were
insurgents and that the dead women were already gagged and killed inside the
house by the time US forces had arrived, victims of an "honor killing." They
depicted as liars the Afghan villagers who insisted that it was US soldiers
who did the killing and that the dead were all civilians. American media
outlets largely regurgitated
<http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/02/12/afghanistan.bodies/index.html>
the American military version uncritically. But enough evidence subsequently
emerged disproving those claims such that the Pentagon was forced to admit
<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/asia/06afghan.html?hp>  that their
original version was totally false and that, just as the villagers attested,
it was US troops who killed the women.

As Starkey wrote: "This is perhaps the most harrowing instance" but "it's
not the first time I've found Nato lying." Is it any wonder that Afghans do
not trust the US government to conduct its own investigation and hold
accountable those responsible?

What is most revealed by the decision to remove Bales from Afghanistan is
the American belief that no other country - including those its invades and
occupies - can ever impose accountability on Americans. This was seen most
recently, and vividly, in Iraq.

President Obama's most swooning supporters love to credit him with "ending
the war in Iraq," but that is simply not what happened. It was President
Bush who entered into an agreement with the Iraqi government mandating the
removal of all US forces by the end of 2011. Rather than comply with that
agreement, the Obama administration tried desperately
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/u-s-troop-withdrawal-motivated-by-iraqi-insi
stence-not-u-s-choice-20111021?print=true>  to persuade and pressure the
Iraqis to allow American troops to remain beyond that deadline. But those
efforts failed because of one cause: the refusal (or, more accurately, the
inability) of the Malaki government to agree that US troops would be
immunized and shielded from Iraqi law for any future crimes they commit on
Iraqi soil.

One prime prerogative of all empires is that it is subject to no laws or
accountability other than its own, even when it comes to crimes committed on
other nations' soil and against its people. That was the imperial principle
that finally compelled America's withdrawal from Iraq, and it is apparently
what caused the US to quickly remove the accused shooter from Afghanistan.
It may be understandable why the US perceives it in its interest to preserve
this imperial power, but it should be equally understandable why its victims
react with increasing levels of suspicion, resentment and rage.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: <mailto:laamn-unsubscr...@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: <mailto:laamn-subscr...@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digest: <mailto:laamn-dig...@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help: <mailto:laamn-ow...@egroups.com?subject=laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: <mailto:la...@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/laamn@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
    laamn-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
    laamn-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    laamn-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply via email to