If we were to look at the facts, what do those facts tell us? I will give one example of the inverted logic that is operative, coming out of the media and U.S. administration. In a recent Pentagon press conference, [Defense Secretary] Chuck Hagel was asked whether or not the U.S. sending B-2 stealth bombers from Missouri to fly and conduct a sortie over South Korea and drop what the DOD calls inert munitions in a simulated run against North Korea could be understood as provocative. He said no, they can’t be understood as provocative. And it was dutifully reported as such.
What we have is a huge informational landscape in which the average person who listens to these reports can’t make heads or tails of what is happening. What has happened since Kim Jong Un has come into his leadership position in North Korea is that the U.S. has had a policy of regime change.
We tend to think of regime change operations and initiatives as a signature or hallmark policy of the Bush administration. But we have seen under President Barak Obama a persistence of the U.S. policy of getting rid of those powers it finds uncooperative around the world. To clarify what I mean, after Kim Jong Il passed away [in December 2011], the U.S. and South Korea launched the biggest and longest set of war exercises they ever conducted. And for the first time it openly exercised O Plan 5029, which is a U.S. war plan that essentially simulates regime collapse in North Korea. It also envisions U.S. forces occupying North Korea.
What is routine during these war exercises, which are ongoing right now, as we speak, is they simulate nuclear strikes against North Korea. These workings are a combination of simulated computer-assisted activity as well as live fire drills. Last year, the first year of Kim Jong Un’s leadership, a South Korean official was asked about the O Plan 5029 and why he was exercising this regime collapse scenario. He said the death of Kim Jong Il makes the situation ripe to exercise precisely this kind of war plan.
It’s almost impossible for us in the United States to imagine Mexico and the historic foe of the U.S., Russia, conducting joint exercises that simulate an invasion of the United States and a foreign occupation of the United States. That is precisely what North Korea has been enduring for several decades."
— Christine Hong, “Behind the North Korean Crisis” (interview)
Is it legal for the police to shoot an unarmed, surrendered citizen?
Across the years in the United States, police officers have consistently been found not guilty in the shooting deaths of countless unarmed, non-violent citizens.
Kendrec McDade comes to mind.
So does Amadou Diallo.
Sean Bell is another.
Add Ramarley Graham to that list.
John Crawford also fits this bill.
In each of these horrific cases, the victims were unarmed and not committing a crime, but police, with stories, far-fetched or otherwise, were able to convince juries that they reasonably feared for their safety. At the root of widespread anger in African-American communities over these cases is the idea that if a white officer imagines a threat, he is basically allowed to act on it, no matter how fictitious the threat may truly be. In the shooting deaths of Amadou Diallo and Kendrec McDade, officers successfully argued that they believed they saw Diallo and McDade not only possess guns, but actually fire them—even though both men were completely unarmed.
Considering the facts of Mike Brown’s shooting death at the hands of Ferguson, Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson on August 9, the question is, then, is it legal for a police officer who is reasonably aware that a citizen is unarmed, to shoot and kill that citizen if the citizen is incapacitated or has peaceably surrendered?
In the end, the shooting death of Brown and the case against Wilson may go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Follow below for more.
A Palestinian woman flashes V sign during a moment of tension between Israeli security forces and Palestinian Muslims near the Al Aqsa Mosque which has been closed to Muslims, in Jerusalem on October 14, 2014. [Salih Zeki Fazlioglu/Anadolu Agency]
Veterans For Peace: “End the Korean War Now!”
The U.S. is waging the longest war in its history in Korea.
After dividing Korea into two arbitrarily at the end of the WW II, the U.S. military has been more or less occupying South Korea since 1945. Uncle Sam established a U.S. military government in South Korea for three years, set up a separate regime in the South (ROK) in 1948, and intervened in the Korean civil war, 1948-53, destroying the entire country with heavy, indiscriminate bombing raids. The terrible War was stopped with a cease-fire only in 1953. Thereafter, the U.S. brought in its nuclear weapons into South Korea in 1958 in violation of the Armistice Agreement—igniting an intense arms race with North Korea. The U.S. military troops in South Korea number about 28, 500, which cost us billions of dollars each year that are solely needed at home. From 1950, the U.S. also imposed and maintains heavy economic sanctions on DPRK. The tragic Korean War is still continuing today without a peace treaty.
- Timeline on Nuclear Threats on Korea
- Joint Statement from Six -Party Talks (9/19/2005)
- Joint Statement from Six-Party Talks (2/13/2007)
- Joint Statement from Six-Party Talks (10/3/2007)
- US/DPRK Statements (2/29/2012)
- "No Gun Ri" a poem by Tom Kennedy
- 2000 VFP Position Statement
- "Beyond No Gun Ri", an excerpt by Sahr Conway- Lanz, Ph.D.
- Picasso’s ‘Massacre in Korea’
- “Night Visions”, by Chuck Overby
- Rep. Honda’s Statement (7-25-2013)
- WCC Statement on Korea-2013
- Newman’s Apology
- “Strategic Patience’ with North Korea" by Lt. Gen. Gard
Blue Painting, 1976, oil on canvas, 167.6 x 172.7cm (66 x 68 in)
In this smartphone photo released Monday, people run for shelter from a hailstorm in Novosibirsk, Russia, on Saturday by Nikita Dudnik
Students doing their homework at makeshift study stations built on a highway in Admiralty. As another week of protests is ending in Hong Kong, moments like these seem more and more striking. For many students the normal location for doing homework would be the McDonald’s / Starbucks territory or paid afterschool tutoring classes. Now, the ample space usually hogged by vehicles becomes a free study center, something almost unheard of in this city, and something that easily would feel like a radical improvement rather than a nuisance.
untitled, nigel shafran, 1994
surface: contemporary photographic practice
We Should Abandon The Term “Capitalism”
… The privileges that mark the existing economic order, whatever we call it, disproportionately benefit those with the most political influence and the greatest wealth. And the network of privileges preserved by the State tends in various ways to boost the privileges of capitalists in the workplace. As regards the workplace: State-secured privilege reduces the possibility of self-employment (by raising capital requirements and otherwise increasing costs of entry, while simultaneously reducing the resources people might be able to use to start and maintain their own businesses). It also imposes legal restraints on union activity that reduce workers’ capacity to bargain effectively with employers, including legislation like the Wagner Act, which tames unions and reduces their non-violent bargaining options. By reducing alternatives to paid work and reducing workers’ collective bargaining opportunities, the State substantially increases employers’ leverage. In short: Dominance of workplaces and of society by “capitalists” as it occurs today depends on government mischief. Again, if this is “capitalism,” proponents of freedom have no reason to embrace it.
Of course, someone could argue that, while “capitalism” is frequently used to refer to objectionable social phenomena, it just as frequently refers to an economic system to which freedom is truly central. Some people do use it this way. But the negative usage has been around for a long time and is very common today. The word is tainted. And when people in the streets of countries throughout the developing world chant out their opposition to “capitalism”—meaning, in reality, not genuine freedom but rather unjust dominance by Western powers and their privileged corporate cronies—I think it’s vital for advocates of liberty to be able to make clear that the system of statist oppression the protestors are naming isn’t the system we favor.
Contributors to the Wall Street Journal’s editorial pages, commentators on Faux News, and other spokespersons for the political and economic elite may continue to use “capitalism” for whatever it is they say they favor. They’re not libertarianism’s natural allies, and there’s no reason for libertarians to emulate them. Support for free markets is quite consistent with saying good-bye to “capitalism.”
The last photo ever taken of Hachikō, the dog who waited for 9 years after the death of his master outside the train station every morning until he himself passed away in 1930s.