Petition Attorney General Eric Holder to Appoint a Special Prosecuter

Formal Petition to Attorney General-Designate Eric Holder to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute any and all government officials who have participated in War Crimes.

Sponsored by Docudharma.com and Democrats.com.

The People vs. Dick Cheney

Karen Greenberg answers the question:

"Will Obama bring the Bushies to account? Will Congress? Some local DA? A judge in Europe? Anyone...?"

Illustration: Roberto Parada (Mother Jones)

Who Will Throw the Book at the Bushies?

In a companion piece to "The People vs. Dick Cheney," Jonathan Schwarz reports:

"If Congress won't, these folks might...."

Vote to Hold the Bush Administration Accountable

UPDATE

An open letter to Barack Obama

Dear President-Elect Obama:

While I understand your desire to put the mistakes and failures of the Bush administration behind us and to focus on the future with a positive agenda of change, I believe it is absolutely necessary to the credibility of your promise of change that you investigate the abuses of the Bush administration and hold accountable anyone who has abused his or her power of office or participated in criminal acts.

Without holding government responsible for past abuses, there is nothing to preclude those same abuses from recurring. When you take the oath of office on January 20th, you will swear to uphold the Constitution. You cannot do so while allowing those who have disgraced it to fail to pay consequences for their actions.

Those who voted for you are passionately hopeful that you will live up to your campaign rhetoric and act boldly to do what is right for our country--no matter the political cost. We are facing unprecedented problems domestically and internationally. We need bold actions, truth, and real solutions.

I implore you to do what is necessary to restore the faith of Americans in our country's leadership by upholding your duties to protect the Constitution.

Thank you.

EVERYONE PLEASE VOTE TO APPOINT A SPECIAL PROSECUTER BY CLICKING ON THE BADGE ABOVE.

Related:

• Arianna Huffington: Memo to Obama: Moving Forward Doesn't Mean You Can't Also Look Back


• Paul Krugman | Forgive and Forget? | NYTimes.com:

  "...[A]bout Mr. Obama: while it’s probably in his short-term political interests to forgive and forget, next week he’s going to swear to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” That’s not a conditional oath to be honored only when it’s convenient...."

• Forcing Obama’s Hand on Torture Prosecutions | The Opinionator Blog | NYTimes.com:

  "...The former chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and general counsel for the Department of the Army has spoken. Her clear words have been picked up around the world. And that takes the prospects of accountability and criminal investigation onto another level. For the Obama administration, the door to the do-nothing option is now closed. That is why today may come to be seen as the turning point."

• Earl Ofari Hutchinson: Holder Can't Prosecute Bush Abuses Too Many Democrats Aided and Abetted Them


• Obama Has to Hold Bush Accountable for the Laws He Broke | Elizabeth Holtzman, The Nation | AlterNet:

  "Obama cannot let former Bush administration officials get away with breaking the law without violating his own oath of office...."

Technorati tags: War crimes, Prosecute, Special Prosecuter, Bush, Cheney, Bush Administration, torture, Justice, Geneva Convention, Paul Krugman

������� It’s not about them…it’s about us

�������Why We Must Prosecute Bush And His Administration For War Crimes : Information Clearing House : Mike Ferner:

"...We are complicit in the horrors of this administration. We can claim neither ignorance nor innocence. We are complicit by the very fact that we are citizens of the United States, more so because we paid for the war, and even more so for this reason. Listen to a village sheik I met in Iraq describe it better than I ever could...."

More on this subject from Glen Greenwald:

� Senate report links Bush to detainee homicides; media yawns�������������
: Information Clearing House : Glen Greenwald:

" ...The culpability which the Report assigns for these war crimes is vast in scope and unambiguous....

[...]

...Instead, TV pundits were consumed with righteous anger over the petty, titillating, sleazy Rod Blagojevich scandal, competing with one another over who could spew the most derision and scorn for this pitiful, lowly, broken individual and his brazen though relatively inconsequential crimes...."

And then there is this:

��������������� Cheney Admits Authorizing Detainee's Torture : Information Clearing House:

"Monday, outgoing Vice President Dick Cheney made a startling statement on a nation-wide, televised broadcast.

When asked by ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl whether he approved of interrogation tactics used against a so-called "high value prisoner" at the controversial Guantanamo Bay prison, Mr. Cheney, in a break from his history of being press-shy, admitted to giving official sanctioning of torture...."

Video is from ABC's World News, broadcast Dec. 15, 2008.

Technorati tags: Torture, War Crimes, Cheney, Bush, Bush administration, Glen Greenwald, Mike Ferner, video, youtube

Top 25 Censored Stories for 2008

Direct from Project Censored:

• #1 No Habeas Corpus for “Any Person”



• #2 Bush Moves Toward Martial Law



• # 3 AFRICOM: US Military Control of Africa’s Resources



• # 4 Frenzy of Increasingly Destructive Trade Agreements



• #5 Human Traffic Builds US Embassy in Iraq



• #6 Operation FALCON Raids



• #7 Behind Blackwater Inc.



• #8 KIA: The US Neoliberal Invasion of India



• #9 Privatization of America’s Infrastructure



• # 10 Vulture Funds Threaten Poor Nations’ Debt Relief



• # 11 The Scam of “Reconstruction” in Afghanistan



• # 12 Another Massacre in Haiti by UN Troops



• # 13 Immigrant Roundups to Gain Cheap Labor for US Corporate Giants



• # 14 Impunity for US War Criminals



• # 15 Toxic Exposure Can Be Transmitted to Future Generations on a “Second Genetic Code”



• #16 No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11



• # 17 Drinking Water Contaminated by Military and Corporations



• # 18 Mexico’s Stolen Election



• # 19 People’s Movement Challenges Neoliberal Agenda



• # 20 Terror Act Against Animal Activists



• # 21 US Seeks WTO Immunity for Illegal Farm Payments



• # 22 North Invades Mexico



• # 23 Feinstein’s Conflict of Interest in Iraq



• # 24 Media Misquotes Threat From Iran’s President



• # 25 Who Will Profit from Native Energy?

Also See:

• Top 25 Censored Stories: Archive | Project Censored

Technorati tags: Project Censored, Media, Censorship, Corporate Media, War, Iraq, U.S. Government, News

War: Crime Against Humanity

Abusing Iraqi Civilians
By Bob Herbert
The New York Times

With no end yet in sight for the long dark night of the Iraq war, The Nation magazine is coming out this week with an article that goes into great and disturbing detail about the brutal treatment of Iraqi civilians by some U.S. soldiers and marines.

The article does not focus on the handful of atrocities that have gotten substantial press coverage, like the massacre in Haditha in November 2005. Instead, based on interviews conducted on the record with dozens of American combat veterans of the war, the authors address what they describe as frequent acts of violence in which U.S. forces have abused or killed Iraqi civilians — men, women and children — with impunity.

The combination of recklessness, wantonly destructive behavior born of panic and deliberate acts of cold-blooded violence by G.I.’s are believed to have cost the lives of thousands of innocent Iraqis, the article says. The soldiers interviewed said they believed that only a minority of U.S. troops engaged in objectionable behavior, but the toll of their actions has been huge.

The article describes soldiers and marines frustrated and fearful in an alien environment in which the enemy hides among civilians and uses acts of terror as the primary tactic. “The mounting frustration of fighting an elusive enemy and the devastating effects of roadside bombs, with their steady toll of American dead and wounded, led many troops to declare an open war on all Iraqis,” said the authors, Chris Hedges, a former Middle East bureau chief for The New York Times, and Laila al-Arian.

Jeff Englehart, a 26-year-old Army specialist from Grand Junction, Colo., said in the article: “I guess while I was there, the general attitude was a dead Iraqi is just another dead Iraqi. You know, so what?”

For a lot of troops, he said, that attitude tended to morph into a debilitating sense of guilt after their return home.

Kelly Dougherty of Cañon City, Colo., who served in Iraq as a sergeant with a National Guard military police unit, remembered investigating an incident in which a military convoy ran over a boy, about 10 years old, and his three donkeys. When she and others from her unit arrived at the scene, the boy was lying dead by the side of the road. The donkeys had also been killed.

“We saw him there,” she said, “and, you know, we were upset because the convoy didn’t even stop. They really, judging by the skid marks, they hardly even slowed down.”

Accidents, even those caused by recklessness, are bad enough. More disturbing are the incidents described in the article in which G.I.’s routinely abused civilians. Among the worst abuses have been the shootings of innocent civilians and the improper arrests that have occurred in the course of raids carried out by soldiers and marines looking for insurgents.

There have been thousands of such raids. An extraordinary number of them — the vast majority, according to the interviews for article — were exercises in futility, yielding nothing but grief and terror for the innocent families whose homes were invaded.

“So you have all these troops, and they’re all wound up,” said Army Sgt. John Bruhns of Philadelphia, who participated in many raids while serving in Baghdad and Abu Ghraib. “And a lot of them think once they kick down the door there’s going to be people on the inside waiting for them with weapons to start shooting at them.”

In most cases, there is nothing more than a terrified family on the other side of the door. In instances in which unarmed civilians are shot and killed in raids, which happens frequently, it’s not unusual for G.I.’s to plant weapons by their bodies and to arrest survivors on false charges of participating in the insurgency, the article says.

“Every good cop carries a throwaway,” said Joe Hatcher, who served with the Army’s Fourth Cavalry Regiment in Iraq. “If you kill someone and they’re unarmed, you just drop one on ’em.”

The article emphasizes the extreme stress that G.I.’s are operating under in Iraq. A byproduct of that stress is the tendency to stereotype and dehumanize all Iraqis. What the soldiers find out, after they get home, is that in dehumanizing the people they supposedly were fighting for, they often end up dehumanizing themselves.

There is no upside to this war. It has been a plague since the beginning. But it’s one thing to lose a war. It’s much worse for a nation to lose its soul.

Photo Credit: Bob Herbert. (The New York Times)

Technorati tags: Bob Herbert, New York Times, US Military, War, Iraq, Chris Hedges, news, commentary, op ed

Save the Darfur Puppy

By Nicholas D. Kristof
The New York Times

Finally, we’re beginning to understand what it would take to galvanize President Bush, other leaders and the American public to respond to the genocide in Sudan: a suffering puppy with big eyes and floppy ears.

That’s the implication of a series of studies by psychologists trying to understand why people — good, conscientious people — aren’t moved by genocide or famines. Time and again, we’ve seen that the human conscience just isn’t pricked by mass suffering, while an individual child (or puppy) in distress causes our hearts to flutter.

In one experiment, psychologists asked ordinary citizens to contribute $5 to alleviate hunger abroad. In one version, the money would go to a particular girl, Rokia, a 7-year-old in Mali; in another, to 21 million hungry Africans; in a third, to Rokia — but she was presented as a victim of a larger tapestry of global hunger.

Not surprisingly, people were less likely to give to anonymous millions than to Rokia. But they were also less willing to give in the third scenario, in which Rokia’s suffering was presented as part of a broader pattern.

Evidence is overwhelming that humans respond to the suffering of individuals rather than groups. Think of the toddler Jessica McClure falling down a well in 1987, or the Lindbergh baby kidnapping in 1932 (which Mencken described as the “the biggest story since the Resurrection”).

Even the right animal evokes a similar sympathy. A dog stranded on a ship aroused so much pity that $48,000 in private money was spent trying to rescue it — and that was before the Coast Guard stepped in. And after I began visiting Darfur in 2004, I was flummoxed by the public’s passion to save a red-tailed hawk, Pale Male, that had been evicted from his nest on Fifth Avenue in New York City. A single homeless hawk aroused more indignation than two million homeless Sudanese.

Advocates for the poor often note that 30,000 children die daily of the consequences of poverty — presuming that this number will shock people into action. But the opposite is true: the more victims, the less compassion.

In one experiment, people in one group could donate to a $300,000 fund for medical treatments that would save the life of one child — or, in another group, the lives of eight children. People donated more than twice as much money to help save one child as to help save eight.

Likewise, remember how people were asked to save Rokia from starvation? A follow-up allowed students to donate to Rokia or to a hungry boy named Moussa. Both Rokia and Moussa attracted donations in the same proportions. Then another group was asked to donate to Rokia and Moussa together. But donors felt less good about supporting two children, and contributions dropped off.

“Our capacity to feel is limited,” Paul Slovic of the University of Oregon writes in a new journal article, “Psychic Numbing and Genocide ,” which discusses these experiments. Professor Slovic argues that we cannot depend on the innate morality even of good people. Instead, he believes, we need to develop legal or political mechanisms to force our hands to confront genocide.

So, yes, we should develop early-warning systems for genocide, prepare an African Union, U.N. and NATO rapid-response capability, and polish the “responsibility to protect” as a legal basis to stop atrocities. (Genocide Intervention Network and the Enough project are working on these things.)

But, frankly, after four years of watching the U.N. Security Council, the International Criminal Court and the Genocide Convention accomplish little in Darfur, I’m skeptical that either human rationality or international law can achieve much unless backed by a public outcry.

One experiment underscored the limits of rationality. People prepared to donate to the needy were first asked either to talk about babies (to prime the emotions) or to perform math calculations (to prime their rational side). Those who did math donated less.

So maybe what we need isn’t better laws but more troubled consciences — pricked, perhaps, by a Darfur puppy with big eyes and floppy ears. Once we find such a soulful dog in peril, we should call ABC News. ABC’s news judgment can be assessed by the 11 minutes of evening news coverage it gave to Darfur’s genocide during all of last year — compared with 23 minutes for the false confession in the JonBenet Ramsey case.

If President Bush and the global public alike are unmoved by the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of fellow humans, maybe our last, best hope is that we can be galvanized by a puppy in distress.

Photo Credit: Nicholas Kristof. (Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times)

Technorati tags: Nicholas Kristof, The New York Times, Darfur, Sudan, War Crimes, Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, Psychology, news, commentary, op ed

Divestment from Genocide

In today's Times op ed, Nicholas Kristof suggests that "Sudan is a rare instance where narrowly focused divestment makes practical as well as moral sense."

I concur. When fighting against injustices of all kinds does it not make sense to use the most viable, non-violent, persuasive tactic we can -- and save military options for the rare instance when we literally and absolutely must and have no other moral choice?

In other words, to "spread freedom" around the globe, do the opposite of everything the Bush Brigade has been doing....

Death by Dollars
By Nicholas D. Kristof
The New York Times

So is your Fidelity account underwriting genocide in Sudan? Is your pension fund helping finance the janjaweed militias that throw babies into bonfires in Darfur and Chad?

The answer to both questions is complicated but may be yes, and that’s one reason a divestment campaign is gaining strength around America and abroad. Six states (including California) have already begun divesting from companies active in Sudan, and legislation is pending in 23 more states, including New York.

More than 30 universities, beginning with Harvard in 2005, have sold certain Sudan-related investments. Five cities have divested, and New York is considering doing so. A bill before Congress would bar certain companies active in Sudan from receiving federal contracts.

Let’s start by acknowledging that divestment and economic sanctions generally fail. The closest thing to a success was the way they helped topple white rule in South Africa in the 1980s, but even there one result was greater hardship for ordinary blacks.

Elsewhere, divestment and economic sanctions have mostly been counterproductive. Our Cuban embargo has hurt Cubans but cemented Fidel Castro in power; our sanctions against Myanmar have inflicted tremendous pain on Burmese without dislodging the brutal government.

So I’m against economic sanctions in almost every case. But Sudan is an exception, a rare instance where narrowly focused divestment makes practical as well as moral sense.

Partly that’s because Sudan’s economy depends on foreign oil companies, giving the outside world leverage. And 70 percent of Sudan’s oil revenue goes to weaponry, like bayonets used to gouge out people’s eyes.

The oil companies in Sudan aren’t American; the biggest players are Chinese companies. Pressure on them is also one way to get the attention of the Chinese government, which is Sudan’s main protector in the U.N. Security Council.

So in this case pressure on a small number of foreign companies could help get Sudan’s attention, and that of its protectors in China, without hurting ordinary people. And Sudan has shown that it can be nudged and embarrassed into behaving better: the best example is the way that pressure (including economic sanctions) led Sudan’s leaders to end their brutal war in southern Sudan in 2005.

Fortunately, the Darfur divestment campaign has been remarkably restrained in choosing targets. Organizers are not seeking divestment from all of the more than 400 foreign companies that operate in Sudan, but only from a few dozen that are complicit in genocide without helping ordinary Sudanese. (See the guidelines at www.SudanDivestment.org, developed largely by a recent U.C.L.A. graduate, Adam Sterling.)

“People are surprised to find out that Royal Dutch Shell is not a targeted company by us, even though they are an oil firm and operate in Sudan,” notes Mark Hanis, who runs the Genocide Intervention Network (which has a divestment hot line, 1-800-GENOCIDE). That’s because Shell sells gas in Sudan at a retail level, rather than enriching the army through production, Mr. Hanis said, and less than 5 percent of those sales are believed to be to the government.

More than other money managers, Fidelity has resisted the pressure and clung firmly to Sudan-related investments. So Darfur campaigners are urging investors to avoid Fidelity mutual funds: more information is at www.FidelityOutofSudan.com.

The biggest U.S. investor in Class H shares of PetroChina, a Chinese oil concern whose parent company is active in Sudan, is Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway. I have huge respect for Mr. Buffett, and he may be thinking: My obligation is to make money for shareholders, not to use their investments in a dubious attempt to save the world. But surely if Berkshire Hathaway and Fidelity mutual funds saw lucrative opportunities in selling bayonets to the janjaweed, they would balk at that. We do have limits; the question is where we draw them.

In this case, the cost of divestment to fund managers or investors is negligible, and there is a real prospect that the strategy will add enough attention, embarrassment and pressure that Sudan will stop slaughtering Darfuris — just as it has stopped massacring people in southern Sudan.

It’s not a sure thing. But remember that in Darfur and Chad, aid workers — some of them Americans — are being killed, raped and beaten as they try to alleviate the slaughter. So shouldn’t we make the minimal sacrifice of divestment, rather than blithely continue to invest in ways that provide grenades and guns to kill aid workers and Darfuris alike?

Photo Credit: Nicholas Kristof. (Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times)

Technorati tags: Nicholas D. Kristof, The New York Times, Foreign Investments, Sudan, War Crimes, Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, Embargoes, Economic Sanctions, news, commentary, op ed

Turn the Other Cheek at What Cost?

Nicholas Kristof brings us face to face with Genocide. Meet Halima Abdelkarim.

"If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, then what am I? And if not now, when?" -- Rabbi Hillel, from the section of the Talmud called Pirkei Avot (1:14) ["Ethics of the Ancestors"]

The Face of Genocide
By Nicholas D. Kristof
The New York Times

GOZ BEIDA, Chad

A woman named Marguerite H. wrote to me recently to complain about my columns on Darfur. “While the situation there is dreadful, we have plenty of needs to be filled at home,” she wrote. “You would be better off putting your energy into making a difference here at home.”

So, Marguerite, meet Halima Abdelkarim. Her life is partly in your hands. Watch her story [See Video Below], and see if you still think we should put off helping her until we have solved our own problems.


(Trouble viewing this video? Click here or here.)

Halima, 20, belongs to the Dajo tribe, one of the black African tribes being slaughtered by Sudanese-sponsored Arab militias called the janjaweed. The attacks began three years ago, but the world largely shared your view, Marguerite, that Darfur was a tragedy but not of strategic significance. And so we have fussed a bit but allowed the genocide to spread.

This March, Darfur’s slaughter crossed the border and reached Halima’s hometown in Chad. The janjaweed killed many men and seized 10 women and girls, including Halima and her little sister, Sadia.

Halima says that the janjaweed, many of them wearing Sudanese military uniforms, mocked the women with racial epithets against blacks, beat them with sticks, and gang-raped them all. Halima, who was then four months pregnant, says she was raped by three men and saw two rape Sadia — who was just 10 years old.

After two days of torment, the janjaweed released them. “But Sadia refused to give up her donkey, and so they shot her,” Halima recalled. “I was with her. She died right away.”

The survivors trekked to a shantytown outside Goz Beida. At first they were safe, and Halima gave birth to a baby daughter. But a couple of months ago the janjaweed began to attack them when they left the camp to get firewood.

Still, the world shared your attitude, Marguerite: It’s sad but a long way off, and anyway we have our own problems.

So last month, the janjaweed caught Halima again — in effect, we allowed the janjaweed to capture her again.

Halima was gathering firewood with a large group of women, who were hoping for safety in numbers. But raiders with guns suddenly appeared and caught seven of them.

The men asked what tribe they belonged to, and upon learning that they were Dajo who had already fled their villages, said, “We’re looking for you.” Halima was carrying her infant girl, Noorelayn, and she says the janjaweed threw the baby to the ground.

“You blacks are not human,” she quoted them as yelling. “We can do anything we want to you. You cannot live here.”

Finally, she says, three men raped her, beat her and stole her clothes. Another of the seven who were caught, Aziza Yakub, 17, confirmed Halima’s story, and added that the janjaweed told her while raping her: “You blacks are like monkeys. You are not human.”

The only way for these women to survive is to gather firewood to sell or exchange for food. Only women collect firewood, because, as they themselves say: “The men are killed; the women are ‘only’ raped.”

Halima’s husband doesn’t know about the latest attack. She didn’t tell him about the first one, but he figured out what must have happened during the two days she disappeared. Although he didn’t blame her, he left her for a few months partly to work out his anger at the janjaweed, and partly to cultivate crops to feed his family. The area he went to was attacked this month, with the janjaweed killing many men or occasionally gouging out their eyes with bayonets. There has been no word from him.

So, Marguerite, Halima’s future is up to us. In the last few days, Sudan has bowed to outside pressure and reluctantly agreed in principle to accept some U.N. peacekeepers in Darfur. That’s a reminder that pressure can work, but we haven’t applied nearly enough. For the peacekeepers to save lives and the killings to stop, much greater effort will be essential. If you didn’t find yourself too preoccupied, Marguerite, maybe you could make a phone call to the White House or write a letter to your member of Congress.

You have other priorities, I know, and so do we all. But our indifference has already allowed Halima to be gang-raped twice and her sister murdered in the first genocide of the 21st century. So, Marguerite, look Halima in the eye, and decide if you’re willing to turn away as she is slaughtered, or how many more times you’re willing to allow her to be raped.

you missed them, here are my earlier video reports from my trip to Chad.

Photo Credit: Halima Abdelkarim. (Nicholas D. Kristof/The New York Times)

Technorati tags: Nicholas D. Kristof, The New York Times, War Crimes, Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, Darfur, Sudan, Chad, Tribes, Tribalism, news, commentary, op ed

Inquiry into the Bush Administration's Crimes against Humanity

CHECK IT OUT:

The 2005 International Commission of Inquiry
on Crimes Against Humanity Committed by
the Bush Administration of the United States
The Bush Crimes Commission

"When the possibility of far-reaching war crimes and crimes against humanity exists, people of conscience have a solemn responsibility to inquire into the nature and scope of these acts and to determine if they do in fact rise to the level of war crimes and crimes against humanity. That is the mission of the International Commission of Inquiry on Crimes Against Humanity...."

The Million Phone March To Impeach President Bush

JOIN US!

Recent polls show that the majority of Americans are in favor of impeaching George W. Bush if he lied to the American people in order to wage his illegal war against Iraq. It is now blatantly clear that he did indeed lie to us.

It is now up to us--all of us--to let our Senators and Congressmen know that we want Bush impeached and that it is their responsibility to begin the proceedings.

Just click on the above link to send your representatives the message--loud and clear--and, if you choose, automatically send your letter to the editor of the newpaper of your choice. Let's remind these politicians that we elected them to represent us and it's about time they started to do so!

Dust off the Nuremberg Files

Anwaar Hussain writes:

"Abundant evidence is now available that shows that leaders and advisers of the Bush and Blair administrations engaged in 'planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression.' Iraq posed no threat to either the United States or Britain...."

British and American leaders likened to Nazi war criminals

Telegraph:

"Tony Blair and George Bush were compared to Nazi war criminals yesterday by Scott Ritter, the former UN chief weapons inspector. 'Both these men could be pulled up as war criminals for engaging in actions that we condemned Germany in 1946 for doing,' he said...."

Pat Tillman, Our Hero

'This War Is So F***ing Illegal'

Dave Zirin writes that football star Pat Tillman, who was killed in Afghanistan last year, believed the US war on Iraq was "f***ing illegal" and counted Noam Chomsky among his favorite authors....

Peace and Justice Campaigns and Educational Programs

This is a "Must Listen."

Audio: George Galloway and Friends in Washington, D.C.:

"We have to raise our demands. We don't want Bush out of the Whitehouse, we want Bush in prison with Blair and all the other war criminals who have brought us to this pass."