Glenn Greenwald, as ever, sums up the tragedy of yesterday’s Senate adoption of the Systematic Destruction of Privacy Act of 2008 (known in polite circles as the FISA bill). His title describes the bill exactly: Congress votes to immunize lawbreaking telecoms, legalize warrantless eavesdropping.
The Democratic-led Congress this afternoon voted to put an end to the NSA spying scandal, as the Senate approved a bill — approved last week by the House — to immunize lawbreaking telecoms, terminate all pending lawsuits against them, and vest whole new warrantless eavesdropping powers in the President. The vote in favor of the new FISA bill was 69-28. Barack Obama joined every Senate Republican (and every House Republican other than one) by voting in favor of it, while his now-vanquished primary rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, voted against it. John McCain wasn’t present for any of the votes, but shared Obama’s support for the bill. The bill will now be sent to an extremely happy George Bush, who already announced that he enthusiastically supports it, and he will sign it into law very shortly.
Greenwald reminds us how Obama directly lied to us, back when he needed progressive primary votes:
Obama’s vote in favor of cloture, in particular, cemented the complete betrayal of the commitment he made back in October when seeking the Democratic nomination. Back then, Obama’s spokesman — in response to demands for a clear statement of Obama’s views on the spying controversy after he had previously given a vague and noncommittal statement — issued this emphatic vow:
To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.
But the bill today does include retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies. Nonetheless, Obama voted for cloture on the bill — the exact opposition of supporting a filibuster — and then voted for the bill itself. A more complete abandonment of an unambiguous campaign promise is difficult to imagine. I wrote extensively about Obama’s support for the FISA bill, and what it means, earlier today.
Greenwald reminds us that the Democrats are paying:
Yet again, the Democratic Congress ignored the views of their own supporters in order to comply with the orders and wishes of the Bush administration. It is therefore hardly a surprise that, yesterday, Rasmussen Reports revealed this rather humiliating finding:
Congressional Approval Falls to Single Digits for First Time EverThe percentage of voters who give Congress good or excellent ratings has fallen to single digits for the first time in Rasmussen Reports tracking history. This month, just 9% say Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Most voters (52%) say Congress is doing a poor job, which ties the record high in that dubious category.
But we only have votes, not the money of the lawbreaking telecoms.
Meanwhile, Joan Walsh describes the feelings of many in her aptly titled Betrayed by Obama:
I’ve admired Obama, but I never confused him with a genuine progressive leader. Today I don’t admire him at all. His collapse on FISA is unforgivable. The only thing Obama has going for him this week is that McCain is matching him misstep for misstep. While we’re railing about Obama’s craven vote on FISA — rightfully; Glenn Greenwald is a hero for his work on this topic — McCain was outdoing Dick Cheney with neocon crazy talk, warning that Iran’s test of nine old missiles we already knew they had increases the chances of a “second Holocaust.” Every time I wonder whether I can ultimately vote for Obama in November, given all of his political cave-ins, McCain does something new to make sure I have to.
She continues, drawing out the danger to the Betrayer-In-Chief:
But Obama needs to watch himself. Telling voters they have no place else to go, before he officially has the nomination, is not a winning strategy. That’s what his people told Clinton voters. That’s what they’re saying about opponents of the FISA sellout. That’s the line on those concerned about his “partial-birth” abortion remarks. It’s arrogant — up against the backdrop of Obama’s big plans for an Invesco Field acceptance speech in Denver and a Brandenberg Gate extravaganza in Berlin, I’m starting to worry about grandiosity — and it could backfire.
And, thinking of a variety of issues no doubt, Jesse Jackson goes further, before he apologized:
“See, Barack been…um…talking down to black people on this faith-based…I wanna cut his nuts off.”
See also Jack Balkin’s discussion of the FISA bill in the context of the construction of the National Surveillance State that I have been writing about for years:
July 10th, 2008
Naomi Wolf on the sexualized nature of American torture, planned and organized by top administration officials. Wolf relates these abuse to other experiences of sexual abuse, and points out that the sexualized nature of US torture has received little attention:
Sex Crimes in the White House
By Naomi Wolf, Huffington Post
Sex crime has a telltale signature, even when those directing the outrages are some of the most powerful men and women in the United States. How extraordinary, then, to learn that one of the perpetrators of these crimes, Condoleezza Rice, has just led the debate in a special session of the United Nations Security Council on the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war.
I had a sense of deja vu when I saw the photos that emerged in 2004 from Abu Ghraib prison. Even as the Bush administration was spinning the notion that the torture of prisoners was the work of “a few bad apples” low in the military hierarchy, I knew that we were seeing evidence of a systemic policy set at the top. It’s not that I am a genius. It’s simply that, having worked at a rape crisis center and been trained in the basics of sex crime, I have learned that all sex predators go about things in certain recognizable ways.
We now know that the torture of prisoners was the result of a policy set in the White House by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Rice — who actually chaired the torture meetings. The Pentagon has also acknowledged that it had authorized sexualized abuse of detainees as part of interrogation practices to be performed by female operatives. And documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union have Rumsfeld, in his own words, checking in on the sexualized humiliation of prisoners.
The sexualization of torture from the top basically turned Abu Ghraib and Guantnamo Bay into an organized sex-crime ring in which the trafficked sex slaves were US-held prisoners. Looking at the classic S and M nature of some of this torture, it is hard not to speculate that someone setting policy was aroused by all of this. And Phillipe Sands’ impeccably documented Torture Team: Rumsfeld’s Memo and the Betrayal of American Values, now proves that sex crime was authorized and, at least one source reports, eroticized: Diane Beaver, the Staff Judge Advocate at Guantanamo who signed off on many torture techniques, told Sands about brainstorming sessions that included the use of sexual tension, which was “culturally taboo, disrespectful, humiliating and potentially unexpected.”
“These brainstorming meetings at Guantanamo produced animated discussion,” writes Sands. “Who has the glassy eyes?” Beaver asked herself as she surveyed the men around the room, thirty or more of them. She was invariably the only woman in the room, keeping control of the boys. The younger men would get excited, agitated, even: “You could almost see their dicks getting hard as they got new ideas” [reported Beaver]. A wan smile crossed Beaver’s face: “And I said to myself, you know what, I don’t have a dick to get hard, I can stay detached.” [Sands, p 63]
The nonsexual torture that was committed ranged from beatings and suffocation, electrodes attached to sensitive areas, and forced sleep deprivation, to prisoners being hung by the wrists from the ceiling and placed in solitary confinement until psychosis was induced. These abuses violate both US and international law. Three former military attorneys, recognizing this blunt truth, refused to participate in the “military tribunals” — rather, “show trials” — aimed at condemning men whose confessions were elicited through torture.
Though we can now debate what the penalty for waterboarding should be, America as a nation, maintaining an odd silence, still cannot seem to discuss the sex crimes involved.
Why? It’s not as if the sex crimes that US leaders either authorized or tolerated are not staring Americans in the face: the images of male prisoners with their heads hooded with women’s underwear; the documented reports of female US soldiers deployed to smear menstrual blood on the faces of male prisoners, and of military interrogators or contractors forcing prisoners to simulate sex with each other, to penetrate themselves with objects, or to submit to being penetrated by objects. Indeed, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was written deliberately with loopholes that gave immunity to perpetrators of many kinds of sexual humiliation and abuse.
There is also the testimony by female soldiers such as Lynndie England about compelling male prisoners to masturbate, as well as an FBI memo objecting to a policy of “highly aggressive interrogation techniques.” The memo cites a female interrogator rubbing lotion on a shackled detainee and whispering in his ear — during Ramadan when sexual contact with a strange woman would be most offensive — then suddenly bending back his thumbs until he grimaced in pain, and violently grabbing his genitals. Sexual abuse in US-operated prisons got worse and worse over time, ultimately including, according to doctors who examined detainees, anal sodomy.
All this may sound bizarre if you are a normal person, but it is standard operating procedure for sex offenders. Those who work in the field know that once sex abusers control a powerless victim, they will invariably push the boundaries with ever more extreme behavior. Abusers start by undressing their victims, but once that line has been breached, you are likely to hear from the victim about oral and anal penetration, greater and greater pain and fear being inflicted, and more and more carelessness about exposing the crimes as the perpetrator’s inhibitions fall away.
The perpetrator is also likely to engage in ever-escalating rationalizations, often arguing that the offenses serve a greater good. Finally, the victim is blamed for the abuse: in the case of the detainees, if they would only “behave,” and confess, they wouldn’t bring all this on themselves.
Silence, and even collusion, is also typical of sex crimes within a family. Americans are behaving like a dysfunctional family by shielding sex criminals in their midst through silence.
Just as sex criminals — and the leaders who directed the use of rape and sexual abuse as a military strategy — were tried and sentenced after the wars in Bosnia and Sierra Leone, so Americans must hold accountable those who committed, or authorized, sex crimes in US-operated prisons. Throughout the world, this perverse and graphic criminality has added fuel to anxiety about US cultural and military power. These acts need to be called by their true names — war crimes and sex crimes — and people in America need to demand justice for the perpetrators and their victims. As in a family, only when people start to speak out and tell the truth about rape and sexual assault can the healing begin.
Naomi Wolf is the author of ‘The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot’ (Chelsea Green, 2007).
July 9th, 2008
The Nordic Psychological Associations have together written a letter to the American Psychological Association posing a number of questions regarding the APA’s policy regarding psychologists’ participation in detainee interrogations. [pdf here]. It will be interesting to see the APA response:
————————
Oslo, 25th June 2008
American Psychological Association
Att: President Alan E. Kazdin
750 First Street,
NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242 USA
[Our ref: 780/1440/08 TLH/hs]
Questions about APAs stand on psychologist’s participation in US military and CIA interrogations.
The policy of the American Psychological Association (APA) regarding the involvement of psychologists in military interrogations has fuelled debate within the psychological communities in our Nordic countries, as it has in the US. The Scandinavian Psychological Associations thus wish to address the matter to share our friendly concerns, as well as to make sure that our understanding of these difficult questions is based on correct interpretations of the stated policies.
The participation of psychologists in interrogations, and the allegations that psychologists have been present in situations where coercive and abusive interrogation techniques have been used, has been brought to international attention through numerous newspaper articles (e.g. Eban, 2007; Lewis, 2004; Mayer, 2005, 2007; Zagorin & Duffy, 2005), articles in academic journals (e.g. Miles, 2007), reports issued by human rights organizations (e.g. Physicians for Human Rights, 2005) and recently declassified military reports (e.g. Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defence, 2006).
We acknowledge the action taken by the APA to prevent the involvement and participation of psychologists in torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. We especially welcome the latest amendment (APA, 2008) to the 2007 resolution (APA, 2007), which refers to important international standards and seals many of the potential “loopholes” in the 2007 resolution. However, we are still concerned over a number of issues.
1. Both the 2006 (APA, 2006) and 2007 resolutions, as well as the 2008 amendment, make reference to, among other international standards, the UN Principles of Medical Ethics (UN General Assembly, 1982), which states that:
It is a contravention of medical ethics for health personnel, particularly physicians, to be involved in any professional relationship with prisoners or detainees where the purpose of which is not solely to evaluate, protect or improve their physical and mental health. (Principle 3).
And:
It is a contravention of medical ethics for health personnel, particularly physicians:
(a) To apply their knowledge and skills in order to assist in the interrogation of prisoners and detainees in a manner that may adversely affect the physical or mentalhealth or condition of such prisoners or detainees and which is not in accordance with the relevant international instruments. (Principle 4)
The aim of psychologists’ involvement in military interrogations has been to evaluate where the potentially weak spots are, when to push or not to push the person under interrogation harder in pursuit of intelligence information (Office of the Surgeon General, 2005) and to teach interrogators how to exploit high value detainees (Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defence, 2006). Does APA consider such actions to be consistent with the UN Principles of Medical Ethics?
2. We regret that the APA Council of Representatives in 2007 did not adopt the amendment that psychologists’ roles in settings and environments where detainees are deprived of fundamental human rights should be limited to providing mental health care and psychological treatment (Okorodudu, Strickland, Van Hoorn, & Wiggins, 2007). Indeed, the UN Special Rapport on Torture considers the presence and participation of psychologists in settings and environments that violate international humanitarian law and basic human rights standards, in other capacities than that of a health care provider, as acquiescence to the violations committed (Coalition for an Ethical Psychology, n.d.). We are concerned that the mere presence of psychologists in settings and environments where detainees are deprived of their most fundamental human rights may be interpreted as a way of condoning these practices, giving support and legitimacy to serious violations of international law and human rights. What is the APA’s opinion in this matter?
3. We also have concerns regarding the seemingly incompatible nature of the APA Ethics Code (2002) and the 2007 resolution (APA, 2007). Whereas the Ethics Code provision 1.02 sets forth that if there is a conflict between ethical principles and the law stating that “psychologists may adhere to the requirements of the law, regulations, or other governing legal authority”, the 2007 resolution states that there
are no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether induced by a state of war or threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, that may be invoked as a justification for torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, including the invocation of laws, regulations, or orders.
Does the 2007 resolution supercede the Ethics Code provision 1.02? How are these two standards to be interpreted by psychologists?
4. Furthermore, according to the Introduction and applicability section of the APA Ethics Code (2002), psychologists should perform their work “in keeping with basic principles of human rights”. This entails that “a psychologist acting in a professional capacity could not invoke the law to justify an abuse of human rights” (Behnke, 2004). How does this apply to psychologists working in places and in environments in which violations of human rights and international law systematically occur as a matter of institutional policy, such as at Guantanamo Bay and “CIA black sites”?
5. Although the Introduction and applicability section of the APA Ethics Code makes reference to human rights, the Ethics Code provision 1.02 does not. This gives the impression that the idea of psychologists adhering to fundamental human rights in their work is merely aspirational and not enforceable (Olson, Soldz, & Davis, 2008). Even if the 2007 resolution supersedes the Ethics Code provision 1.02, we are concerned that the current wording of the provision 1.02 allows psychologists to participate in human rights violations that do not reach the standard of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Does APA deem it ethical for psychologists to actively participate in situations where enforced disappearances and incommunicado detention/imprisonment without charge or trial occur?
6. One of the main arguments of the APA for the continued presence of psychologists in military interrogations is that this presence ensures that interrogations are conducted in a safe, ethical and legal manner. Although we agree that psychologists do possess important knowledge of the stresses of captivity, for instance SERE (survival, evasion, resistance & escape) psychologists, we are concerned by the practice of using military psychologists in the capacity of “safety officers”. To illustrate this point, we can mention that Danish military psychologists refuse to participate in the practical prisoners of war exercises/training that Danish soldiers have to undergo as part of their preparations for active service in war zones. This refusal on the part of the psychologists refers directly to their ethical guidelines and obligations (Ulrichsen, 2005). We are concerned that the “dual loyalty” difficulties (Physicians for Human Rights & University of Cape Town, 2002) inherent in these settings will impose restrictions on the psychologists’ possibility to act as whistle blowers in relation to potential human rights violations. Is it not so that APA would promote the protection of detainees far better by working to secure/grant independent organizations, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, and other independent human rights monitoring bodies, unlimited access to all detainees in order to prevent abuse and ill-treatment? We are concerned that military psychologists cannot function in an ethically correct way in sites where basic human rights are systematically violated, and where appropriate international bodies of control are denied access.
7. In relation to this last point - what initiatives have been taken from the APA to secure that independent and thorough investigation have taken place in situations where allegations of psychologist involvement in torture and other ill-treatment have been presented?
We hope to engage in a constructive and open dialogue with the APA on these issues. We also hope to develop a close collaboration with the objective of eliminating all torture and cruel and degrading treatment. Our aim is a better and more practical approach to the necessary assistance of all people exposed to torture who are in critical need of good psychological treatment and rehabilitation. International attempts at justice and accountability for human rights violations represent an issue of great importance to our common field, and is one that deserves our deepest involvement and attention.
The committee is fully aware that this has been an issue between EFPA and APA for a long time. It is our view that this dialogue should continue, but we would like to raise these questions on behalf of the Scandinavian associations.
Tor Levin Hofgaard
President of the Nordic Committee of Psychologists’ Associations
President of the Norwegian Psychological Association
References:
APA (2002). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.pdf
APA (2006, August 9). Resolution Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Retrieved June 10, 2008, from http://www.apa.org/governance/resolutions/notortureres.html
APA (2007, August 19). Reaffirmation of the American Psychological Association Position Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and Its Application to Individuals Defined in the United States Code as “Enemy Combatants”. Retrieved May 11, 2008, from http://www.apa.org/governance/resolutions/councilres0807.html
APA (2008, February 22). Amendment to the Reaffirmation of the American Psychological Association Position Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and Its Application to Individuals Defined in the United States Code as “Enemy Combatants”. Retrieved May 11, 2008, from http://www.apa.org/governance/resolutions/amend022208.html
Behnke, S. (2004). APA’s new Ethics Code from a practitioner’s perspective. Monitor on Psychology, 35(4). Retrieved from http://ww-w.apa.org/monitor/apr04/ethics.html
Coalition for an Ethical Psychology (n.d.). Analysis of the American Psychological Association’s frequently asked questions regarding APA’s policies and positions on the use of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment during interrogations. Retrieved June 10, 2008, from http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/apa_faq_coalition_comments_v12c.pdf
Eban, K. (2007, July 17). Rorschach and awe. Vanity Fair. Retrieved May 11, 2008, from http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/07/torture200707
Lewis, N.A. (2004, November 30). Red Cross finds detainee abuse in Guantanamo. The New York Times. Retrieved May 11, 2008, from http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F30910FF3A5A0C738FDDA80994DC404482
Mayer, J. (2005, July 1 1). The experiment. The New Yorker. Retrieved May 11, 2008, from http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/07/11/050711fa_fact4?printable=true
Mayer, J. (2007, August 13). The Black Sites: A rare look inside the C.I.A.’s secret interrogation program. The New Yorker. Retrieved May 11, 2008, from http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/08/13/070813fa_fact_mayer?printable=true
Miles, S.H. (2007). Medical ethics and the interrogation of Guantanamo 063. The American Journal of Bioethics, 7(4), 1-7.
Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defence (2006, August 25). Review of DoD-directed investigations of detainee abuse. Retrieved May 11, 2008, from http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/abuse.pdf
Office of the Surgeon General (2005, April 13). Final report: Assessment of detainee medical operations for OEF, GTMO, and OIF. Retrieved May 12, 2008, from http://www.amedd.army.mil/news/detmedopsrprt/detmedopsrpt.pdf
Okorodudu, C., Strickland, W.J., Van Hoorn, J.L., & Wiggins, E.C. (2007). A call to action: APA’s 2007 Resolution against torture. Monitor on Psychology, 38(10). Retrieved May 12, 2008, from http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov07/calltoaction.html
Olson, Soldz, & Davis, (2008). The ethics of interrogation and the American Psychological Association: A critique of policy and process. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, 3(3).
Physicians for Human Rights (2005). Break them down: Systematic use of psychological torture by US. Forces. Cambridge: Physicians for Human Rights.
Physicians for Human Rights & University of Cape Town. (2002). Dual loyalty and human rights in health professional practice: Proposed guidelines & institutional mechanisms. Retrieved February 12, 2008, from http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/documents/reports/report-2002-duelloyalty.pdf
Ulrichsen, R. (2005). Forsvar for etikken. [In defence of an ethical psychology.] Psykolog Nyt, 21, 1. Retrieved May 11, 2008, from http://infolink2003.elbo.dk/PsyNyt/Dokumenter/doc/13387.pdf
UN General Assembly (1982, December 18). Principles of Medical Ethics relevant to the Role of Health Personnel, particularly Physicians, in the Protection of Prisoners and Detainees against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Retrieved May 12, 2008, from http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_comp40.htm
Zagorin, A., & Duffy, M. (2005, June 12). Inside the interrogation of detainee 063. Time Magazine. Retrieved May 11, 2008, from http://www.time.comitime/magazine/article/0,9171.1071284,00.html
July 7th, 2008
A group of activists has launched an Open Letter to Senator Obama, asking him to come out against war with Iran. To add your name, go here:
An Open Letter to Barack Obama on Iran
Dear Senator Obama,
We the undersigned may have different views on U.S. foreign policy with respect to Iran. We all, however, are deeply concerned about the stories in the press in the past few weeks suggesting that the Bush administration might be considering a military strike on Iran, that it might give a green light to such an attack by Israel, or that it might engage in other acts of war, such as imposing a blockade against Iran.
We welcomed your stand against the war on Iraq in 2002. And we were encouraged by your early campaign statements emphasizing diplomacy over military action against Iran. Today, you have an opportunity to forestall a repeat of the tragic Iraq war. We hope you will use that opportunity.
We agree with the conclusion of Muhammed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, that “A military strike … would be worse than anything possible. It would turn the region into a fireball…” A military attack, he said, “will mean that Iran, if it is not already making nuclear weapons, will launch a crash course to build nuclear weapons with the blessing of all Iranians, even those in the West.” (Reuters, June 20, 2008.)
We don’t know, of course, whether an attack on Iran is in fact being considered, or if there are serious plans to initiate other acts of war, such as a blockade of the country. But we call on you to issue a public statement warning of the grave dangers that any of these actions would entail, and pointing out how inappropriate and undemocratic it would be for the Bush administration to undertake them, or encourage Israel to do so, in its closing months in office.
An attack on Iran would violate the UN Charter’s prohibition against the use or threat of force and the Congress’s authority to declare war. Moreover, the public right to decide should not be foreclosed by last-minute actions of the Bush administration, which will set U.S. policy in stone now.
We were heartened by your earlier comments suggesting that an Obama administration would act on the understanding that genuine security requires a willingness to talk without preconditions (something Iran has offered several times to no avail), and that threats and military action are counterproductive. We hope you will follow through on these commitments once in office, but also that you will speak out now against any acts of war by the Bush administration.
Sincerely,
(organizations listed for identification purposes only)
Michael Albert ZNet
Cathy Albisa exec. director, National Economic and Social Rights Initiative
John W. Amidon U.S. Veterans for Peace
Stanley Aronowitz Professor of Sociology, Graduate Center, CUNY
Rosalyn Baxandall Distinguished Teaching Professor, SUNY Old Westbury
Phyllis Bennis Institute for Policy Studies
Stephen Eric Bronner Professor (II) of Political Science, Rutgers University
Charlotte Bunch exec. director, Center for Women’s Global Leadership, Rutgers Univ.
Noam Chomsky Institute Professor (retired), MIT
Ray Close retired CIA Middle East specialist; Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
Rhonda Copelon Professor of Law, CUNY Law School
Hamid Dabashi Professor of Iranian Studies and Comparative Literature, Columbia Univ.
Lawrence Davidson Professor of Middle East History, West Chester Univ.
Ariel Dorfman author
Stuart Ewen, Distinguished Professor, Hunter College & the Graduate Center, CUNY
John Feffer co-director, Foreign Policy in Focus
Bill Fletcher, Jr. exec. editor, BlackCommentator.com
Libby Frank Women’s Internat’l League for Peace & Freedom, Philadelphia
Arthur Goldschmidt Professor emeritus of Middle East History, Penn State Univ.
Tom Hayden author
Doug Henwood Left Business Observer
Doug Ireland journalist
James E. Jennings exec. director, U.S. Academics for Peace
Nikki Keddie UCLA (emeritus), historian, Iran specialist
Janet Kestenberg Amighi v.p., CDR (sponsor of Holocaust child survivor research)
Rabbi Michael Lerner chair, The Network of Spiritual Progressives; editor, Tikkun mag.
Mark LeVine Prof. of Modern Middle Eastern History, Culture and Islamic Studies, U. Cal., Irvine
Manning Marable director, Center for Contemporary Black History, Columbia Univ.
David McReynolds former chair, War Resisters Internat’l
Rosalind Petchesky Distinguished Prof. of Poli. Sci., Hunter College & the Graduate Center, CUNY
Rachel Pfeffer interim exec. director, Jewish Voices for Peace
Katha Pollitt writer
Danny Postel No War on Iran Coalition, Chicago
Matthew Rothschild editor, The Progressive magazine
Stephen R. Shalom Prof. of Poli. Sci., William Paterson Univ.
(Rev.) David Whitten Smith Univ. of St. Thomas, Minnesota (emeritus)
Meredith Tax writer; president, Women’s WORLD
Michael J. Thompson editor of Logos
Chris Toensing editor, Middle East Report
Cornel West Professor, Princeton University
Stephen Zunes Professor of Politics, Univ. of San Francisco
To add your name, go here.
July 4th, 2008
