Anti-War Up - Why being Anti-War Means Being Anti-Imperialist

WHY BEING ANTI-WAR MEANS BEING ANTI-IMPERIALIST

===========================================

[Col./Speech Writ. 10/11/03] Copyright 2003 Mumia Abu-Jamal

What everybody knows, after the mass protests that were

held in cities around the earth over ½ a year ago, is that the forces

of the U.S. government could care less about the popular protests

that shook the planet.

They could care less because they do not serve the interests

of the people, but the privileged; they do not serve the many; they

serve the few. They serve Wall Street; Petroleum Row; Haarken

Oil and Halliburton. In their heart of hearts, 'democracy' is a

dirty word.

They don't really care about the latest round of protests

that are being waged against the war; they have their hands on

the levers of power, and they don't want to let go. Those who

dared to lie to the American people to start a needless war, could

care less that there are millions of people who oppose it. That's

why they chose the vehicle of fear, the spectre of 'terrorism', to

justify the Iraq attack, when every schoolchild now knows that

the Baghdad government had nothing to do with the events of

9-11.

But the Bush Regime has used that fear; that anxiety; that

sense of being under attack, to stoke the fires of war, and now the

U.S. is involved in building and protecting a colony in the heart

of the Middle East. That's why it isn't enough to simply say,

"Bring the Troops Home", as some have said. For to do so only

means, 'bring them home today, to unleash them on some other

unsuspecting people tomorrow.'

That is a recipe for postponing war, not ending it.

War is indeed, big business, but it is more than that; it is

a social tool by which governments have always mobilized larger

social forces for their political ends. The ends of government?

What it has always been - power.

Why do you think the Bushites have unleashed the somber

Ashcroft upon the American people? A man who lost a senate

election to a dead man is now the ultimate arbiter of who may

exercise civil rights in this 'new era'? Students are being thrown

out of school because politicians don't like their t-shirts.

Thousands are locked in dark gulags in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

They are denied lawyers, are being held incommunicado, and face

torture. When some have dared to file suits against these fundamental

violations of human rights, they are told that because this site is in

Cuba, the U.S. suddenly lacks 'jurisdication.' What legalized drivel!

If the U.S. doesn't have jurisdiction, who does? Cuba? The UN?

Clearly, the solution to the egregious human rights violations in

Guantanamo Bay will not be found in U.S. courts, just as the solution

to these wars for empire will not be found in anti-war marches.

This is but a beginning; not an end.

To be truly anti-imperialist means to oppose the 'soft'-imperialism

of the Democrats, *and* the 'hard' imperialism of the Republicans.

Both imperialisms are fundamentally wrong, for they begin with the

false premise that Americans know best, how other peoples should live

their lives, and organize their societies.

One cannot believe in self-determination and imperialism; those

two views are incompatible.

To be truly anti-imperialist means organizing, not demonstrations,

but mass movements that pose an alternative to the deadly status quo.

It means believing, and fighting for, the idea that another world

is possible.

It means thinking of the peoples of this world as the same as us;

not 'them.'

It means the renunciation of white supremacy. It means a

foreign policy truly based upon simple humility; instead of

domination.

It means a real transformation of the way things are done here;

and that means change; revolution. It means this, or it means

nothing.

For, if these steps aren't taken, generations will be plunged

into bloody and needless wars; wars fought for wealthy elites based on

lies, and fear, and greed.

It means the surrender of your children and grandchildren to

wars of ignorance. It means, in fact, endless war!

No to Imperial War!

Copyright 2003 Mumia Abu-Jamal

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 1922 -1000, "redvet" wrote:

>WHY BEING ANTI-WAR MEANS BEING ANTI-IMPERIALIST

First you boy has Zero creditability, he's a convicted of murdering a
Police Officer.
Second point, please be kind enough to point out what this has to do
with Viet Nam.
Political "Statements" should be posted in a Political Group, and I
always thought you were a step above John Wayne, I'll have to re-think
that.

Ken
11Bravo

In article , redvet
wrote:

> WHY BEING ANTI-WAR MEANS BEING A COP-KILLING SCUM
>
> ===========================================
>
> [Col./Speech Writ. 10/11/03] Copyright 2003 Cop-Killing Scum Wesley Cook

One Problem in Abu-Jamal Crusade: He's Guilty
The Los Angeles Times; Los Angeles, Calif.; Dec 21, 2001; STEVE LOPEZ;

Abstract:
A gun registered to [Mumia Abu-Jamal], with five chambers empty, was on
the sidewalk. Four witnesses who saw all or part of the shooting
implicated Abu-Jamal. One witness said that after Faulkner went down,
Abu-Jamal stood over him and sealed the deal with a bullet through the
head.
It's true that the 1982 trial was a circus, but that's because
Abu-Jamal wanted it to be. His own attorney told me that Abu-Jamal, a
Black Panther, considered himself a revolutionary and didn't want a
legal defense. He wanted to make a political statement. At times,
Abu-Jamal was removed from the courtroom because of his outbursts.
While there was a grain of truth to some of the claims, many were
simplifications, exaggerations or outright lies. For instance,
Abu-Jamal supporters scream that a .44-caliber bullet was removed from
Faulkner's body but that Abu-Jamal had a .38. In fact, that claim has
been debunked by the defense team's own ballistics expert.
Full Text:
(Copyright, The Times Mirror Company; Los Angeles Times 2001 All rights
reserved)

Maureen Faulkner moved across the country after her husband was shot
and killed on a downtown Philadelphia street 20 years ago this month.
In Camarillo, she made new friends, started a new job and tried to
build a new life.

But the old one keeps chasing after her.

Faulkner's late husband, Danny, was a cop. The man who killed him,
Mumia Abu-Jamal, has become an international celebrity and a symbol of
everything that's wrong with the American judicial system.

This week, after years of appeals, a federal judge in Philadelphia
affirmed the 1982 murder conviction but threw out the death sentence.
He ordered that Abu-Jamal either be kept in prison for life or be given
a new sentencing hearing.

Maureen Faulkner, who manages a medical office in Camarillo, has been a
wreck since the news. The other night, just after dozing off, she
bolted up, gasping for air.

"I jumped out of bed and couldn't catch my breath, and the reality hit.
Oh, my God! I'm going to have to go back to that courtroom and go
through this again."

Having lived and worked in Philadelphia for about 12 years, I happen to
know a few things about the murder of Officer Danny Faulkner. I've
talked to the prosecutors and to Abu-Jamal attorneys, read the
transcripts, studied the appeals and visited the scene of the murder.

And without qualification, hesitation or a shadow of a doubt, I can
tell you this:

Mumia Abu-Jamal is guiltier than O.J.

On Dec. 9, 1981, Officer Faulkner made a traffic stop on Abu-Jamal's
brother, Billy Cook, who put up a fight. Abu-Jamal happened upon the
scene, and shooting began. Faulkner ended up dead, and Abu-Jamal was
shot in the chest.

A gun registered to Abu-Jamal, with five chambers empty, was on the
sidewalk. Four witnesses who saw all or part of the shooting implicated
Abu-Jamal. One witness said that after Faulkner went down, Abu-Jamal
stood over him and sealed the deal with a bullet through the head.

And yet an international crusade to free Mumia--fueled by endorsements
from Hollywood celebrities including Susan Sarandon, Paul Newman, Ossie
Davis, Ed Asner, Tim Robbins and Alec Baldwin-- has had people marching
in the streets from Africa to Asia and beyond.

I've seen "Free Mumia" posters and T-shirts in Canada and Greece.
Twenty-two members of the British Parliament called for a new trial,
and this month the Paris City Council made Abu-Jamal its first honorary
citizen in 30 years. The last was Picasso.

These people believe with all their heart, and very little of their
head, that Abu-Jamal is a political prisoner who was framed,
scapegoated and railroaded by a racist police force and a hanging
judge.

It's true that the 1982 trial was a circus, but that's because
Abu-Jamal wanted it to be. His own attorney told me that Abu-Jamal, a
Black Panther, considered himself a revolutionary and didn't want a
legal defense. He wanted to make a political statement. At times,
Abu-Jamal was removed from the courtroom because of his outbursts.

When I lived in Philadelphia, I couldn't begin to make sense of the
Abu-Jamal juggernaut until I got a call one day from Los Angeles.

The caller told me he worked in entertainment and had been handed a
petition demanding a new trial for Abu-Jamal. Everyone in his office
was happily signing up, but he wanted to know more before jumping on
the wagon, and someone suggested he call me.

He read me a list of claims about coerced witnesses, suppressed
evidence, fabricated evidence and dark conspiracies. And then I
understood the Abu-Jamal fever and accompanying dementia.

While there was a grain of truth to some of the claims, many were
simplifications, exaggerations or outright lies. For instance,
Abu-Jamal supporters scream that a .44-caliber bullet was removed from
Faulkner's body but that Abu-Jamal had a .38. In fact, that claim has
been debunked by the defense team's own ballistics expert.

Mumia supporters, who tend to work themselves into a lather, have
foamed at me for years, and I think I know why I make them so
uncomfortable.

I believe there's an unconscionable history of police brutality and
frame jobs on minorities in Philadelphia, Los Angeles and the rest of
the country.

I believe the death penalty is so disproportionately applied to
minorities without adequate legal representation, it ought to be
abolished.

And yet I refuse to buy into their political claptrap and help them
make a martyr of Abu-Jamal, who shot Danny Faulkner in cold blood and
watched him die.

Had Abu-Jamal argued that it was a matter of self-defense, I might have
thought differently. But he didn't. For 20 years, in fact, he said
absolutely nothing about what happened. You'd think that might set off
a few alarms among breathless supporters, but not a chance.

In the absence of an explanation from Abu-Jamal, Hollywood celebrities,
racially motivated apologists and other misguided opportunists created
their own, pitching half-baked conspiracies and cockamamie tales of
mystery killers fleeing the scene.

But here's the topper:

For 20 years, Abu-Jamal's own brother Billy, who was at the scene of
the crime, never uttered a word in his defense. What kind of sap buys
into Abu-Jamal's innocence when his own flesh and blood lets him stew
on death row?

Earlier this year, Abu-Jamal's latest defense team broke the big news
that Faulkner was killed by a Mafia hit man, a scenario so ridiculous
that the previous attorneys kept it quiet to avoid embarrassment. And
Billy Cook finally broke his silence with the blockbuster report that
an unnamed acquaintance of his did the job.

These were the developments that apparently inspired Parisians to
elevate Abu-Jamal into the realm of Picasso.

This week, when the federal judge ruled that jurors were improperly
instructed in the penalty phase of the 1982 trial, neither side was
happy.

Abu-Jamal supporters had wanted the judge to throw out the conviction
altogether, prosecutors wanted the death sentence to stick, and both
sides plan to appeal.

And so it drags on for Maureen Faulkner, who was just 24 when this
nightmare began, and wishes the federal judge would have left things as
they were.

In past court appearances, she has been spat upon and cursed by
Abu-Jamal supporters, for no reason other than her unwavering belief in
justice for her husband's killer.

"Now I'll probably have to relive the whole thing once more," she says.
"I'll have to hear Mumia supporters screaming at me and pointing their
fingers like they're shooting at me. It's been over 20 years now. Is
there any regard for the survivors of crime?"

*






>
> What everybody knows, after the mass protests that were
>
> held in cities around the earth over ½ a year ago, is that the forces
>
> of the U.S. government could care less about the popular protests
>
> that shook the planet.
>
> They could care less because they do not serve the interests
>
> of the people, but the privileged; they do not serve the many; they
>
> serve the few. They serve Wall Street; Petroleum Row; Haarken
>
> Oil and Halliburton. In their heart of hearts, 'democracy' is a
>
> dirty word.
>
> They don't really care about the latest round of protests
>
> that are being waged against the war; they have their hands on
>
> the levers of power, and they don't want to let go. Those who
>
> dared to lie to the American people to start a needless war, could
>
> care less that there are millions of people who oppose it. That's
>
> why they chose the vehicle of fear, the spectre of 'terrorism', to
>
> justify the Iraq attack, when every schoolchild now knows that
>
> the Baghdad government had nothing to do with the events of
>
> 9-11.
>
> But the Bush Regime has used that fear; that anxiety; that
>
> sense of being under attack, to stoke the fires of war, and now the
>
> U.S. is involved in building and protecting a colony in the heart
>
> of the Middle East. That's why it isn't enough to simply say,
>
> "Bring the Troops Home", as some have said. For to do so only
>
> means, 'bring them home today, to unleash them on some other
>
> unsuspecting people tomorrow.'
>
> That is a recipe for postponing war, not ending it.
>
> War is indeed, big business, but it is more than that; it is
>
> a social tool by which governments have always mobilized larger
>
> social forces for their political ends. The ends of government?
>
> What it has always been - power.
>
> Why do you think the Bushites have unleashed the somber
>
> Ashcroft upon the American people? A man who lost a senate
>
> election to a dead man is now the ultimate arbiter of who may
>
> exercise civil rights in this 'new era'? Students are being thrown
>
> out of school because politicians don't like their t-shirts.
>
> Thousands are locked in dark gulags in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
>
> They are denied lawyers, are being held incommunicado, and face
>
> torture. When some have dared to file suits against these fundamental
>
> violations of human rights, they are told that because this site is in
>
> Cuba, the U.S. suddenly lacks 'jurisdication.' What legalized drivel!
>
> If the U.S. doesn't have jurisdiction, who does? Cuba? The UN?
>
> Clearly, the solution to the egregious human rights violations in
>
> Guantanamo Bay will not be found in U.S. courts, just as the solution
>
> to these wars for empire will not be found in anti-war marches.
>
> This is but a beginning; not an end.
>
> To be truly anti-imperialist means to oppose the 'soft'-imperialism
>
> of the Democrats, *and* the 'hard' imperialism of the Republicans.
>
> Both imperialisms are fundamentally wrong, for they begin with the
>
> false premise that Americans know best, how other peoples should live
>
> their lives, and organize their societies.
>
> One cannot believe in self-determination and imperialism; those
>
> two views are incompatible.
>
> To be truly anti-imperialist means organizing, not demonstrations,
>
> but mass movements that pose an alternative to the deadly status quo.
>
> It means believing, and fighting for, the idea that another world
>
> is possible.
>
> It means thinking of the peoples of this world as the same as us;
>
> not 'them.'
>
> It means the renunciation of white supremacy. It means a
>
> foreign policy truly based upon simple humility; instead of
>
> domination.
>
> It means a real transformation of the way things are done here;
>
> and that means change; revolution. It means this, or it means
>
> nothing.
>
> For, if these steps aren't taken, generations will be plunged
>
> into bloody and needless wars; wars fought for wealthy elites based on
>
> lies, and fear, and greed.
>
> It means the surrender of your children and grandchildren to
>
> wars of ignorance. It means, in fact, endless war!
>
> No to Imperial War!
>
> Copyright 2003 Mumia Abu-Jamal