The Sudanese government and southern rebels signed a peace agreement today to end the 21-year civil war in the south. "The accord between the mainly Muslim and Arab north (the base for the government) and the mainly Christian and animist south is intended to pave the way for a comprehensive ceasefire and a six-year transition period leading to a referendum on independence for the south." (Guardian, May/27).
But as Human Rights Watch appeals, this must not deflect criticism of the government's ongoing campaign of “ethnic cleansing” in the western region of Darfur, and one of the worst humanitarian problems we are faced with presently. A recent editorial explains the situation:

The violence in Sudan began a year ago, when two rebel groups in Darfur -- the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) -- attacked government military installations. The rebels were protesting raids by local militias, or the Janiaweed ("men on horseback"), who were suspected of acting on behalf of the government. The Sudanese government responded with a "scorched earth" campaign, and stepped up support for the Janiaweed.
It is estimated that more than 1 million Sudanese have been forced from their homes in the Darfur region. More than 120,000 are said to have crossed the border into neighboring Chad; the rest are internal refugees. They come from the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa ethnic groups, members of the region's ethnic majority. They are Black Muslim peasants. The Janiaweed are Arab nomads. That difference is reported to be the reason for the Khartoum government's support of the militias. (...)
Earlier this month, Acting U.N. Human Rights Commissioner Bertrand Ramcharan made the case for action in a closed-door briefing. Speaking to the press afterward, Mr. Ramcharan charged the Sudanese government with adopting a scorched earth policy and condoning, if not committing, "repeated war crimes and crimes against humanity." Apparently, senior Sudanese officials admitted in private that they "recruited, uniformed, armed, supported and sponsored the militias."
The Security Council's failure to act is sad. But that failure, coming less than a decade after inaction permitted genocide to occur in Rwanda, makes the world body an accomplice to the crimes being committed. The U.N. cannot claim ignorance of what is happening. It has the information it needs. It also knows all too well what the price of inaction will be: slaughter.
Politics lies at the root of the U.N.'s inaction. African and Arab states have backed the Sudan government's claim that this is an internal matter. The same nations backed Khartoum's successful effort to win a third consecutive term on the U.N. Human Rights Commission. What credibility can that organization have when its members slaughter their own citizens? (Japan Times May/27)

The report from Human Rights Watch explains further:

As recently as [May, 24], Arab militias attacked five villages 15 kilometers south of Nyala in Darfur, killing 46 civilians and wounding at least nine others, according to local sources. The militias, known as Janjaweed, were accompanied by government soldiers in three Land Cruisers armed with antiaircraft artillery. Human Rights Watch has extensively documented how the Janjaweed have been armed, trained, and uniformed by the Sudanese government.
The framework peace agreement to be signed today in Naivasha, Kenya, was negotiated between the Sudanese government and the southern-based rebels, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A). It brings the parties significantly closer to ending the civil war between the Khartoum government and the southern-based rebels that since 1983 has cost 2 million lives, most of them southerners. Negotiations on security arrangements and implementation remain.
The peace negotiations were conducted for nearly two years under the auspices of the InterGovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and with the mediation of the United States, the United Kingdom, and Norway. Although the agreement includes provisions on the structure of the Sudanese government and oil revenue sharing during an interim six-and-a-half-years’ period, no other rebel groups or political parties were included in the negotiations.
Human Rights Watch called on the U.N. Security Council to pass a resolution requiring the Sudanese government to disarm, disband, and withdraw the Janjaweed from the areas they have occupied, and to bring them to justice for gross human rights abuses perpetrated against civilians. On May 25, the Security Council issued a strong presidential statement on Darfur expressing “deep concern” at reports of widespread attacks on civilians, rapes, forced displacement, and other violence, especially that “with an ethnic dimension.” It demanded that those responsible be held accountable. It failed, however, to identify any party responsible for the attacks, although it did condemn “these acts which jeopardize a peaceful solution to the crisis.” (Humand Rights Watch, May/26)

Al Gore, the former VP and flat presidential candidate, has once again used MoveOn
as a platform to make very strong statements against Bush Jr., a practice that he has found easier when out of professional politics. On this occasion, he uses the torture in Abu Ghraib to make broader criticism of his foreign policy.

George W. Bush promised us a foreign policy with humility. Instead, he has brought us humiliation in the eyes of the world. (...) There is good and evil in every person. And what makes the United States special in the history of nations is our commitment to the rule of law and our carefully constructed system of checks and balances. Our natural distrust of concentrated power and our devotion to openness and democracy are what have lead us as a people to consistently choose good over evil in our collective aspirations more than the people any other nation. (...)
Listen then to the balance of internal impulses described by specialist Charles Graner when confronted by one of his colleagues, Specialist Joseph M. Darby, who later became a courageous whistleblower. When Darby asked him to explain his actions documented in the photos, Graner replied: "The Christian in me says it's wrong, but the Corrections Officer says, 'I love to make a groan man piss on himself."
What happened at the prison, it is now clear, was not the result of random acts by "a few bad apples," it was the natural consequence of the Bush Administration policy that has dismantled those wise constraints and has made war on America's checks and balances.
The abuse of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib flowed directly from the abuse of the truth that characterized the Administration's march to war and the abuse of the trust that had been placed in President Bush by the American people in the aftermath of September 11th.

House of Bush

I just finished reading Craig Unger's House of Bush, House of Saud: The secret relationship between the world's two most powerful dynasties. It has a really detailed history of how the royal family established investment and friendly relationships with George W. Bush (the 40th and the 42nd prez), James Baker III, Dick Cheney, the Carlyle Group. Saudi money bailed many USAmerican companies out. In return, Saudis got the guarantee of security for their regime. This relationship was at its high point during the Reagan/Bush admins. During this period the US supported the Islamic militants that fought the soviets in Afghanistan, the development of the mujahideen, which lead to the ascendancy of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. The Saudis were eager to get the Rebuplican party back in the White House and donated generously. They were repaid when in the aftermath of 9/11, when all planes were grounded, a select list of Saudis were allowed to leave the country and the Express VISA system was intact, even though some of the hijackers had gotten into the US exactly in that fashion. Bottom line: the relationship between the two Houses has fostered terrorism and then hindered the fight against it. I highly recommend the book. I may cover more details from here at a later point.
Recent news are quite concerning. The Associated Press reported today that U.S. officials have obtained new intelligence deemed highly credible indicating al-Qaida or other terrorists are in the United States and preparing to launch a major attack this summer. "There is clearly a steady drumbeat of information that they are going to attack and hit us hard," said the official, who described the intelligence as highly credible.
A report by the International Institute of Strategic Studies, claims that al-Qaeda has more than 18,000 potential terrorists scattered around the world and the war in Iraq is swelling its ranks. It may be seeking weapons of mass destruction in its desire to inflict as many casualties as possible. Although about half of al-Qaeda's top 30 leaders have been killed or captured, it has an effective leadership, with bin Laden apparently still playing a key role. Osama bin Laden's network appears to be operating in more than 60 nations, often in concert with local allies.
Frankly I see these reports and I get scared. Which is one more reason why I think Bush needs to leave office. His tactics in the self-proclaimed 'War against terrorism' have promoted greater instability and resentment against the West. Partly, as Richard Clarke's report reveals, for lack of understanding of the middle east. Partly because the Bush foreign policy is dictacted by neo-con ideologues with a manichean world view.
We need someone who can make the more powerful military nation in the world be respected for its sense of fairness and its ability to foment dialogue and problem resolution, and that is not unconforatable with relenquishing some of its dominance. The problems we face are real. The choice of strategy is crucial.

Insect Notes

If you've been recently anywhere near trees out in Long Island (or surely other locations in the Northeast), you've probably had some caterpillars string down onto your head or clothing. We're experiencing quite an outbreak of cankwerworms that are defoliating many trees (mostly oaks). I remember a week or so ago there were so many in the forest patch I was walking in that their frass (insect feces) falling on leaves and ground sounded like rain.
Many of the caterpillars are the Fall Cankerworm, Alsophila pometaria (Harris). The larvae vary in color from apple green to dark brownish green in color with a dark middle stripe and three narrow white lines on each side. Fall cankerworms have three pairs of fleshy prolegs at the end of the abdomen (as opposed to the Spring Cankerworm, Paleacrita vernata). The Spring and Fall Cankerworms larvae emerge in the Spring, when foliage is young. When they are about to pupate, they descend to the ground on silk threads. The larvae then burrow into the ground to a depth of one to four inches, spin a silken cocoon and pupate. The pupae remain in the soil until the late fall or early spring. The names of two species refer to when the adults emerge: the Spring cankerworms emerge in the early spring the following season, the Fall cankerworms emerge as adults in late fall of the same season, often during warmer periods in October through early December. The females are wingless and a dull grey color. They crawl up on tree trunks to await a winged male.
My advisor, Doug Futuyma, found that populations of the Fall Cankerworm are formed by a minority of sexual individuals and a majority of parthenogenetic females - females that reproduce asexually. Because females are wingless and many asexual, a population can be composed of many very differentiated strains, specialized on different host plants (oak, maple, etc), with different adult emergence time and hatching times. [Mitter, C., D. J. Futuyma, J. C. Schneider and J. D. Hare. 1979. Genetic Variation and Host Plant Relations in a Parthenogenetic Moth. Evolution 33: 777-790.]

For those in the NorthEast of the US, there is another exciting insect event: the emergence of periodical cicadas (Magicicada sp.). The typical cicadas have yearly reproductive cycles. Periodical cicadas live most of their lives in a immature stage below ground feeding on root sap, and then emerge in large numbers. Then after a period of 13 or 17 years, depending on the species, a huge number of adults emerge. There are several species, each with distinct morphology. Some have a period of 13, others 17 years. Curiously, species with similar periods are not the most closely related, rather morphologically similar species with 13 and 17-periods form closely related species pairs. 17-year nymphs grow more slowly during the first four years of life than do 13-year cicadas. An individual species may have different populations, in different localities, all with similar periods, but with emergence dates falling on different years. This pattern gives rise to different broods, that rarely reproduce with each other (but there are exceptions). This year is the emergence of brood X, of the 17-year species. So far it hasn't been reported on Long Island, but other states are already experiencing the explosion. Check Cicada mania for updates.

Why should they emerge simultaneously in large numbers? The common explanation is that by emerging in large number, predators or parasites become rapidly satiated leaving many alive. The more interesting question for me is why 13/17 years? Why not some other numbers? It seems to have to do with the fact that they are prime numbers, which reduces the occurence of co-emergence of broods, or the co-emergence of the cicadas and predators. [Cox, RT and CE Carlton. 1998. A commentary on prime numbers and life cycles of periodical cicadas AMERICAN NATURALIST 152: 162-164] But then why not other prime numbers, such as 3,5 or 7? Lloyd and Dybas postulated a parasitoid with a life cycle of many years duration, nearly synchronized with the ancestral periodical cicada and exerting a counter-selection pressure favoring a longer life cycle. A race between the parasitoid and the cicadas would have culminated in the 13-year cycle, and the parasitoid would have gone exticnt. [Monte Lloyd and Henry S. Dybas. 1966. The Periodical Cicada Problem. II. Evolution 20: 466-505.]

Camilo Mejia

The trial of Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejia began yesterday in Fort Stewart Georgia. Mejia served three years in the Army and almost five in Florida's National Guard when he was deployed to Iraq in April 2003. He spent six months in Iraq, and then returned to the U.S. on what was supposed to be a two-week furlough in October 2003. But he did not report back to the military until March 2004, when he announced that he would file a conscientious objector application. During that time, he tried to obtain a discharge based on the fact that he is not a U.S. citizen — he's a permanent resident with a green card and Nicaraguan citizenship — and the Army limits non-U.S. citizens' service to eight years. He learned, however, that that time limit has been suspended during the war on Iraq.

His reasons for not wanting to return to the Iraq quagmire were moral and legal, he claims. He witnessed — and sometimes even caused — many deaths, including deaths of children, political protesters, and other civilians. He saw the brutalizing effects the war had on his fellow soldiers. Mejia's objector application claims he saw Iraqi prisoners treated "with great cruelty" when he was put in charge of processing detainees last May at al-Assad, an Iraqi air base occupied by U.S. forces. Ordered to keep prisoners awake for up to 48 hours, soldiers would sometimes bang on walls with a sledgehammer or would "load a 9 mm pistol next to their ear."
Ramsey Clark, a former U.S. attorney general under LBJ and one of Mejia's lawyers, said Mejia was protected by international law to avoid duties that would have constituted war crimes. Mejia faces a year in prison and a bad-conduct discharge if convicted of desertion.

In his own words:
"When you look at the war, and you look at the reasons that took us to war, and you don't find that any of the things that we were told that we're going to war for turned out to be true, when you don't find there are weapons of mass destruction, and when you don't find that there was a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, and you see that you're not helping the people and the people don't want you there, to me, there's no military contract and no military duty that's going to justify being a part of that war."

And this is an excerpt of a letter his mother addressed to the activist community
Please come to Ft. Stewart, GA from May 19-21 to support the trial of my son, Camilo Mejia Castillo
Dear Friends,
I want to thank the thousands of people who have expressed their support for my son's decision not to return to the war in Iraq (...). He served in Iraq from March to October 2003. He returned to the U.S. for a two-week leave in October and decided he could not, in good conscience, return to the "illegal and immoral war in Iraq." He went AWOL and then on March 15, reported back to the military authorities and applied for conscientious objector status. On March 25, the Army charged him with desertion and placed him in military custody at Ft. Stewart, Georgia.(...) On behalf of my family, I am asking the organizations and individuals who support my son's case to join us at this historic trial. (...)We plan to hold vigils in the evenings, starting the evening of May 18.(...)Camilo is the first Iraq War veteran to publicly refuse further military service. We will have many expert witnesses testifying on behalf of our argument that his orders to deploy were illegal under US and international law. The most recent US polls show that the majority of the public are now starting to oppose this war. Camilo's trial can contribute significantly to the growing momentum to end the occupation and bring the troops home. This is why it is so important to show strong public support for his courageous stand. Together we can say NO to this immoral war, and YES to granting Camilo conscientious objector status. Together we can say bring our soldiers home, and return sovereignty to the Iraqis. Thank you so much for your support. If you have questions or plan to join us, please contact me at SolaBay@aol.com .
In peace,
Maritza Castillo


In a separate letter she writes
I've also learned that army officials have restricted Camilo to Ft. Stewart and have barred him from conducting face to face interviews on the base with the media. Louis Font, his civilian attorney, plans to challenge this "gag" order, arguing that my son's rights to free speech are being abridged. (...) I'm addressing the people of the United States of America, the Hispanic Community and the world to express my deepest sorrow and indignation about the injustice that is being made against my son. I want to ask you to continue giving him your support. Please write letters to Camilo expressing your support towards his cause. Send letters to the Army Officials and to the Congress of the United States demanding that his conscientious objection application be accepted.

Camilo's Address:
Ssg. Mejia Camilo
A Company USAG MED-HOLD 865
Hase Road,
Ft. Stewart, GA 31315

Commanding General, Fort Stewart's Address:
Major General William G. Webster, Jr.
Commanding General, Fort Stewart,
42 Wayne Place,
Ft Stewart GA 31314

Also, visit the American Friends Service Committee for other ways to show your support.

Assaults on Gaza Strip

The IDF (Israeli Defense Force) is assaulting the civilian populations of Rafah with violence remeniscent of the 2002 attacks on Jenin and Nablus. Rafah is situated in the West Bank, near the Egyptian border. Last week an armored vehicle was blown up, killing five soldiers assigned to destroy alledged arms-smuggling tunnels. In response the IDF destroyed about 100 houses, and officials said hundreds more may be torn down. At least 20 Palestenians have been killed in the operation (Ha'aretz). The United Nations Relief and Works Agency has
issued a call to the Israeli military to halt its demolition operations in Rafah in the Gaza Strip where 12,600 people are now homeless. In all, more than 11,000 Palestinians in Rafah — out of a population of 90,000 — have been made homeless by Israeli demolitions since the outbreak of fighting in 2000.
Arab Nations have requested a UN Security Council meeting for Tuesday in hopes of support for a resolution condemning Israel's widespread destruction of Palestinian homes along the Gaza-Egypt border. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has condemned Israel's demolition of Gaza Strip homes as "unacceptable". But its doubtful any condemnation will emerge from the Security Council where the US holds veto power.

Daniel Barenboim, the musician and conductor, upon receiving the Wolf Prize, on May 9, made the following statements in the Israeli Parliment, the Knesset:
"I am asking today with deep sorrow: Can we, despite all our achievements, ignore the intolerable gap between what the Declaration of Independence promised and what was fulfilled, the gap between the idea and the realities of Israel?
Does the condition of occupation and domination over another people fit the Declaration of Independence? Is there any sense in the independence of one at the expense of the fundamental rights of the other?
Can the Jewish people whose history is a record of continued suffering and relentless persecution, allow themselves to be indifferent to the rights and suffering of a neighboring people?
Can the State of Israel allow itself an unrealistic dream of an ideological end to the conflict instead of pursuing a pragmatic, humanitarian one based on social justice.
I believe that despite all the objective and subjective difficulties, the future of Israel and its position in the family of enlightened nations will depend on our ability to realize the promise of the founding fathers as they canonized it in the Declaration of Independence.

Same-sex marriage

Yesterday, Massachusetts became the first US state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. More than a thousand couples have already received their licenses in this short period.
President Bush's reply was to renew his call to Congress to pass a discriminatory amendment to the U.S. Constitution denying marriage for same-sex couples. "The sacred institution of marriage should not be redefined by a few activist judges. All Americans have a right to be heard in this debate."

The fact that the president is supporting a constitutional amendment underlines how vehemently and passionately he and the Christian-right oppose same-sex marriage. Since the Bill of Rights (1791), the US constitution has only been amended 17 times (once to reverse a previous amendment - prohibition). It requires approval by a two-thirds majority in both the Senate and House and three-quarters of the states for ratification.
In the US system, it is not unusual for courts to spearhead societal changes. Major issues, such as civil rights to education (Brown v. Board of Education in 1954), rights to interracial marriage (Loving v. Virginia in 1967), abortion rights (Row vs. Wade) have been decided in the courts. Nor is it unusual for states to preserve their sovereignty, under Federalism, and approve distinct progressive laws.
That's why even Bob Barr, who authored the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, in a Newsweek interview opposes the amendment. DOMA created a federal definition of "marriage" and "spouse". Marriage is defined as a "legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife," and spouse is defined as "a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." Same-sex marriages are not recognized by the federal government, or eligible for any of its benefits, such as Social Security. Under DOMA, individual states have the right to recognize same-sex marriages, but these will not be recognized by the federal government or states that decide accordingly.
According to Barr, this seemed sufficient back in 1996, because they never suspected local officials to take initiative on this issue. But some state judges and city mayors (such as New Paltz and San Francisco) did, and the issue came to the spotlight.

This is not a fringe phenomena (the numbers in just a few days speak for themselves): most polls show a nation divided, with a majority favoring same-sex marriages. It is not a whim: there are concrete legal rights that are denied same-sex couples that cannot marry, such as health benefits, social security, jointly hold property, inheritance, etc. And civil unions (granted in Vermont) do not cross state lines.
Bush will try to make this into an electoral issue (Kerry, from Massachusetts, opposes same-sex marriage, but also opposes the amendment). Its part of his religious agenda. And if it garners attentions, it might very well steal focus from other less comfortable issues for him.

Paragraph 175

I recently saw, on DVD, the documentary Paragraph 175, produced and directed by Rob Epstein & Jeffrey Friedman, released in the 2000 Sundance festival, where it won the documentary jury prize for direction. The title refers to a section of the 1871 German Penal Code, which states "an unnatural sex act committed between persons of the male sex or by humans with animals is punishable by imprisonment; the loss of civil rights may also be imposed."

Between 1933 and 1945 100,000 men were arrested for homosexuality under Paragraph 175. Some 10-15,000 people were sent to concentration camps. Some 4,000 survived. This is the highest death rate among non-jewish nazi camp prisonors.
Fewer than ten survivors were known to be alive when the documentary was filmed. Research on this neglected topic was spearheaded by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. The main historian featured in the documentary is Hans Muller, who had never heard of the persecution of homosexuals in nazi Germany, and came upon the topic in finding his identity as a gay historian. Encouraged by the work of historians and researchers, eight of these survivors, then in their 80s and 90s, gave their personal testimonies in 1995. The documentary is a criss-cross of these testimonies. It starts with the Weimer Republic period, during which Paragraph 175 was in effect, but homosexuals enjoyed a climate of acceptance and openly assumed their sexuality (unusual for the period). Berlin was an Eden for gays and lesbians, with numerous gay bars and dance clubs.
It covers the rise to power of the nazi party, which initially appeared to accept homosexuals. The leader of the nazi brown shirted stormtroppers, the Sturmabteilung (SA), Ernst Roehm, was openly gay, and the nazi opposition used that as a political tool against the nazis. Hitler stood by Roehm during these attacks, and wrote "[the SA] is not an institution for the moral education of genteel young ladies, but a formation of seasoned fighters. [...] private life cannot be an object of scrutiny, unless it conflicts with basic principles of National Socialist idealogy." However, Roehm fell victim to the political struggles with the Nazi party, and was killed in the night of the Long Knives (June 19-30 1934). Hitler then used Roehm's homosexualtiy as further argument for his murder. Homosexuals were purged from the Nazi party and prey to generalized persecution.
In 1935, on the anniversary of Roehm's murder, the nazis introduced a new sodomy law and created the Reich Office for the Combate of Abortion and Homosexuality. Lesbianism was seen as a temporary and curable condition, and lesbians were sparred persecution to a large extent. Women were seen as having a pivotal role in the reproduction of the aryan race. Male homosexuality, however, was seen as incurable and contagious, and depriving "Germany of the children they owe her" (Himmler). While most were sparred the gas chambers, they were among the chosen for medical experiments and castration.
The nazi version of Paragraph 175 remained in effect West Germany until 1969!! According to the notes that accompany the documentary, "some survivors were re-arrested after the war and re-imprisoned. The East and West German governments not only excluded all homosexuals from reparations but also deducted time spent in concentration camps from their pensions. Marriage, escape by suicide, or retreat into isolation were common responses. In the 1950s and 1960s, the number of convictions for homosexuality in West Germany nearly equaled the number under the Nazi regime."

The documentary is not a "heavy, depressing" documentary (I often hear that complaint from people reluctant to watch and learn from such documentaries). There are inevitably grim historic points that never fail to impress, such as when Heinz Dormer, who had been compelled to join the hitler youth but was later interned in Sachsenhausen concentration camp, described the 'Singing Forests': prisoners hung from a hook on poles, howling and screaming, an inhuman sound. "Beyond human comprehension. And much remains to be told," says Dormer. [And the need to try to understand is what compells me to see even the most 'depressing' of documentaries'.]
But there are also many stories of bravery and it is endearing to see these men, after all they have gone through, recollect with a smile in their eyes their first gay experience, covert gey encounters. One of the interviewees, Albrecht Becker, was briefly imprisoned under Paragraph 147, but after his release, and realizing there were nearly only women in his town, joined the army in order to "be around men."
One of the most piercing interviews is that of Pierre Seel, a French Alsatian. He confessed to conflict in being interviewed by the German historian Muller, for he vowed never to shake hands with a German. Later he describes how he was forced to watch (together with 300 other prisoners) the torture and murder of his friend in Schirmeck camp, and how he himself was beaten and sodomized with a 25cm piece of wood. With visceral indignation, he yells at Muller "Do you think I can talk about that? That it is good for me?" "I am ashamed for mankind", he concluded. Those words had such a powerful, haunting resonance for me. Not a personal embarassment, not a jab at the Germans, but a generalized disapointment with humanity.
Another, Gad Beck, a Jew and gay, is out-right inspiring. His strength and vitality are in stark contrast with all the other interviewees, who seem more affected by age and experience. Beck played a role in the Jewish resistance in Berlim, after the war helped in the construction of Israel, and later returned to Germany to work with Berlin's Jewish community. He tells an extraordinary story. He learned from his lover's boss that he and his family had been arrested. The boss asked him "Do you have courage?", and gave Beck his son's hitler youth uniform. Beck entered the school, saluted 'Heil Hitler' and asked to see the officer in charge. He asked for his lover, Manfred. A Gestapo asks whether he'll bring him back, and Beck replies 'What eles? He's a Jew"'. Twenty meters out of the school house, already safely out, Manfred calmly says 'I cannot go with you Gad. If I leave my sick family now, I'll never be free again. I have to go with them. I'm the only strong one'. Without saying goodbye, he turned and walked back to the school house. 'Something was forever broken in me', concluded Beck.
Another interviewee, Heinz F. was repeatedly arrested during the war, having spent over eight years in concentration camps. He was released from Buchenwald and immediately recruited into the retreating army, eight before the German defeat. He told no one of his experiences until appearing in this film, "out of shame" he confessed with visible distress. He described how after the war his mother said or asked nothing. "It's all about patiently carrying one's burden." Muller asked whether he would have liked to have talked to someone about his experience with anyone. And in a moving moment, this 92 year-old, cries as he says he would have liked to talk about it with his father.

Heinz Dormer, repeatedly re-arrested in t the 50s and 60s, under Paragraph 175, was still seeking reparations when the documentary was released. And Pierre Seel, 90% disabled from the torture suffered, was still seeking official acknowledgment of his case. This documentary is also a inspiration to historians and artists. A year after its release, 2001, the German government issued an official apology to gay victims of the Nazis. Which reminds me to write about 'apologies' some time soon.

Khalil Gibran

My friend handed me a book a couple months ago, by a Lebanese author I didn't know. It stood near my bed untouched, until yesterday I finally picked it up and was really taken by it.
The Prophet, by Khalil Gibran, is on the surface a religious text. A ship has arrived and the main character, who has long awaited the ship, will be leaving. Upon his departure, many towns people ask him about numerous topics, and the main section of the poem is the main character's pronouncements on everything from food to love, clothes and death. Some of them are appealing, other less so.
Normally I wouldn't be partial to reading anything with such a description, it rings of self-help book, or 'Don't sweat the small stuff'. But something captured my attention and emotion. Perhaps its modernity, the power of the poetry, its secular humanism (for although God is mentioned, this is not an Epistle written hundreds of years ago, with religious followers, a liturgy). Perhaps what grabbed me was that in very begging the 'prophet' deals with the conflict of leaving, which is very much my present state.

How shall I go in peace and without sorrow? Nay, not without a wound in the spirit shall I leave this city. Long were the days of pain I have spent within its walls, and long were the nights of aloneness; and who can depart from his pain and his aloneness without regret? Too many fragments of the spirit have I scatterd in these streets, and too many are the children of my longing that walk naked among these hills, and I cannot withdraw from them without a bruden and an ache. It is not a garment I cast off this day, but a skin that I tear with my own hands. Nor is it a thought I leave behind me, but a heart made sweet with hunger and with thirst. Yet I cannot tarry longer.

Gibran has an interesting biography. Born in Lebanon in 1883, his father was imprisoned for tax evasion and his family immigrated to Boston, where they lived in poverty. There his talent was recognized and Fred Holland Day tutored him. At 15, he returned to Lebanon to finish his education and learn Arabic. Gibran rebeled against the parochial education of the Maronite-founded school which offered a nationalistic curriculum. After completing his studies, he returned to Boston, but he and his family was burdened with poverty and death. He wrote intially in Arabic, publishing in English only as late as 1915. Before this, he travelled to Paris and then settled in New York, gathering influences and contacts whereever he went. He became politically active, viewing WWI as an Lebanon's opportunity of liberation from the oppressive Ottoman Empire. Aas a result of his liberal positions towards religion and women, his desire to bring western ideas to Arabic countries, he never became established as an Arabic writer. He died on April 10th 1931, of liver cancer. The New York streets staged a two-day vigil for Gibran’s honor, whose death was mourned in the U.S. and Lebanon. His will left large amounts of money to his country, since he wanted his Syrian citizens to remain in their country and develop it rather than immigrate.

Check out Seymour Hersh's piece in the New Yorker, on the issue of torture of Iraqis by US military. Hersh is a Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist, who won noteriety when he helped uncover the My Lai massacre in Vietnam. He's read a fifty-three-page report written by Major General Antonio M. Taguba completed in late February. "Taguba found that between October and December of 2003 there were numerous instances of 'sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses' at Abu Ghraib. This systematic and illegal abuse of detainees, Taguba reported, was perpetrated by soldiers of the 372nd Military Police Company, and also by members of the American intelligence community."

Human Rights Watch points out, the United States has also not adequately responded to allegations of other abuses in U.S. detention in Afghanistan, including cases of beatings, severe sleep deprivation, and exposure of detainees to extreme cold.

In Iraq a U.S. army lieutenant colonel who admitted that in August he threatened to kill an Iraqi detainee, firing a shot next to the man's head during a violent interrogation, received a fine as a disciplinary measure, but was not subjected to a court martial. The U.S. army in January discharged three reservists for abusing detainees at a detention camp near Basra in southern Iraq.

There are enough reports of abuses that lead one to fear these may not be exceptions. Either the orders come from higher up, or there is a chronic loss of the chain of command - as some of the officers in Abu Gharaib complained about. I heard a right-wing talk show host yesterday, lamenting the outcry at these photos, whereas there was small outcry at the photos of US contractors killed in Falluja. [He must have been referring to the Arab press.] But there is a fundamental asymmetry. The atrocities perpetrated in Falluja were done by a mob, composed of people angry at their state of siege. These military atrocities were committed by members of a hierachical structure, pledged to abide by the Geneva conventions. In addition, they are the occupying power, with greater force, and greater responsibility of setting an example. Neither group has a moral excuse. But the military (or the police) have the higher moral burden.
And there are channels to correct abuses, which must be pursued to the fullest extent.

In 1884 the United Brotherhood of Carpenters introduced a resolution on the convention floor of the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions. It called for a general strike to begin on May 1, 1886, for gaining the eight-hour workday as a standard for all workers in the United States. Most workers toiled for better than 12 to 16 hours on average, seven days a week, with no overtime, insurance or workers' compensation protections.
The resolution was adopted unanimously. [How's that for organized labor, setting a date for a strike two years in advance!] Struggles between labor and the police, National Guard, and the Pinkertons were violent in those times, and it was not uncommon for deaths to occur during clashes.
The newspapers and industrialists were instilling fear that May 1st, 1886 would be and inssurection, as the Paris Commune of 1871, that strikers were as foreign agents. As the day approached, more and more unions and workers were pledging to strike.
On May 1st, 1886, a saturday, but normally a workday, more than 350,000 workers walked off their jobs. The day is described in Labor's Untold Story, by Richard Boyer and Herbert Morais, thus: "May 1 was a beautiful day in Chicago. (...) crowds of workers, laughing, chatting, joking, and dressed in their best clothes, accompanied by their wives and children, were assembling for a parade on Michigan Avenue. (...) Off the main route of the parade and on streets adjacent to it, companies of armed police and special officers were gathering ready to enforce "law and order." On strategic rooftops police, Pinkertons, and militia officers were stationed with raifles and ohter paraphernalia of war. 1,350 members of the National Guard were mobilized and under arms, uniformed, equipped with Gatling guns." Among the speakers were Albert Parsons, a member of both the Knights of Labor and the Chicago Central Labor Union, and Albert Spies, the editor of the German workers' paper Die Arbeiter-Zeitung. All went peacefully, the militia demobilized, and police back to regular duty. But the strike continued.
On Monday violence errupted. Again, from Labor's Untold Story: "The police, exasperated by the futility of May I after such high expectations, gained some relief by clubbing the locked-out emplyees of the McCormick Harvester Works, as they ruched in 300 scabs. At closing time a great crowd of the lowcked-out employees were waiting the exit of the scabs when police suddenly charged them with drawn revolvers. The retreated when police, according to a witness, 'opened fire into their backs. Boys and men were killed as they ran.'" Six workers were killed.
The outraged leaders of the Chicago eight-hour movement organized a protest meeting in Haymarket Square the next day, May 4th. 180 police, came from the nearby station, in regular military formation. The crowd began to run. As the Police Captain Ward was demanding the meeting disperse, a bomb was thrown into a squad of police, killing eight. Police reacted by firing in every direction, and clubbing and trampling as they attempted to gain control. More than 200 of the participants were wounded when panicking police opened fire into the crowd.
In the following days, "the police, urged by the press and pulpit, by the great and the near great demainding immediate revenge, went wild, packing Chicago's jails (...) raiding the headquarters and offices of tradeunions and other working class organizations.
Among the arrested and indicted were Spies, Michael Schwab, Fielden, Parsons, Adolph Fischer, George Engel, Louis Lingg and Oscar Neebe. All were charged with conspiracy to murder, despite the fact that only three had been present at the Haymarket meeting. During the trial in June 1886, the state could not provide evidence that any of the men had knowledge of the bomb or that they had incited or participated in the violence.
As a result of the trial, all but one of the men received death sentences (Neebe received 15 years). Despite international outcry, Spies, Parsons, Fischer, and Engel were hanged on November 11, 1887; Lingg escaped by committing suicide.
In 1888, the American Federation of Labor voted to continue the eight-hour movement, fixing May 1st 1890 as the time for actions. The interactional labor movement, supported the eight-hour fight and designated May I, 1890 an interantional day of struggle.

Does this day still have meaning today? While in many developed countried there is an eight-hour day, in many this is still a goal. Many workers, even in developed coutries, find the need to world 12-hour days (or longer) to make ends meet. There are many violations of workers rights, and many struggles for gaining rights. Workers and union organizers still face violence everywehere.
Colombia is a nightmare in this regard. Thousands of trade-unionists have been assasinated since 1986. Three of every five unionists killed in the world are Colombian. The government and industrialists make use of the military and paramilitaries to specifically target union organizers. A worldwide campaign against Coca-Cola is based on significant proof of its complicity in murders. Ray Rogers, the president of Corporate Campaign, and a Coca-Cola shareholder brought these issues to the floor of a Coca-Cola share-holders meeting this April. Despite his right to talk, he has dragged away by six plainclothes Wilmington Police officers.
The class struggle continues. Perhaps the nature of class has changed since the 1880s, but as Michael Zweig in The working Class Majority points wout, one still has grupos of poeple with different degrees of power to determine and control the process in work and society.
The fact that the day is celebrated by millions worldwide (ironically, less so in the USA) is a testament to its continued significance. Millions of workers worldwide marched from Thailand to Ghana, South Africa to Russia, Germany to Canada, both Koreas to Cuba, Britain to Australia. Some of the events were marked by violence (such as Germany).