Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Proposal for United for Peace and Justice

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
davidswanson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 03:27 PM
Original message
Proposal for United for Peace and Justice
By David Swanson

The largest peace coalition in the United States, United for Peace and Justice, will meet in Chicago on December 12 through 14th to set its agenda for the coming year. A draft Strategic Framework is already available. It includes four area for the peace movement to work on:

1) We remain committed to the urgent goal that has always been the centerpiece of our work: immediately ending the U.S. war and occupation in Iraq and bringing all the troops home! We call for an end to the ongoing U.S. war and occupation in Afghanistan.

2) Our work for peace and justice will include an action response to the economic, social and environmental crisis at home and worldwide.

3) We will work to prevent new wars in Pakistan, Iran and elsewhere.

4) It is time to challenge the Global War on Terror and the Empire Building Agenda of the U.S.

These four points are elaborated upon in the document. Point number 2 includes the all-important project of shifting resources from wars to diplomacy, foreign aid, and human needs (although this is complicated now by the fact that "bailouts" have dwarfed wars as a way to waste money). A few other points are included as well, but as non-priorities.

Through December 6th, UFPJ is accepting feedback through its website. And there will be opportunities to make proposals at the meeting in Chicago.

I've heard a lot of proposals not on the list that I approve of. Some are modifications of one of the existing projects, such as a particular focus on single-payer health care or a stronger position against sanctions and other hostile actions toward Iran. Some are specific tactics, such as an effort to work together with ANSWER on a sixth-anniversary protest, or a proposal for Iraq Moratorium days each month. I think these are all excellent ideas and plan to support them.

But I think we are also missing a key element that should be included as a separate fifth point or combined with an existing but re-worked project. If point #2 were re-framed as an effort to prevent future wars, then the project of shifting resources to human needs would still belong there, but something else would as well.

I think it is imperative that we deter future wars, as well as defunding them, that we reestablish the rule of law in addition to simply requesting that certain laws be voluntarily obeyed for the moment. We can do this by prosecuting high officials who are guilty of war crimes, including the supreme crime of aggressive war. We can also shift power away from the Pentagon and the White House, and back to Congress and to the United Nations.

If we do not take these steps, we will be permiting a lawless world in which crimes are lamented but the criminals not punished. We will be handing every future president absolute power and asking him or her not to be corrupted by it. And when a president launches a new war of aggression next year or next decade, our response will be constrained to "Stop that this instant or, or, or... we'll march in the streets!" And our lobbying will either be directed at the president or at a powerless Congress.

I don't want to underestimate the power of marching in streets. I'm in favor of doing a lot more of it. But it cannot be our only power. And it isn't. Many UFPJ member groups, including the Center for Constitutional Rights and AfterDowningStreet are working to prevent pardons, advance prosecutions, and restore checks and balances in our government. The Congress has significantly lost the powers to legislate, raise and spend money, declare and end wars, approve and reject treaties, approve and reject officials, oversee the government, and impeach those who abuse power. We cannot proceed as a movement within a democracy unless we restore and expand that democracy. We will not be able to persuade future officials to listen to us if past officials have suffered no penalty for ignoring us.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Independent_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 03:41 PM
Response to Original message
1. Kicked and highly recommended!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 04:34 PM
Response to Original message
2. What? We can't just trust our Presidents? K & R
Disagreeing and saying I don't want to have to trust a President keeps going over the heads of some folks that are in positions of influence.

Stop the occupations, stop aggressive preemptive war - end the Bush Doctrine.

Bush and Cheney know they are off the hook. I suspect they cut deals with our party's leaders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Truth2Tell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 05:35 PM
Response to Original message
3. K&R
Accountability. A core requirement of democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 05:51 PM
Response to Original message
4. Thanks for the info, David Swanson
:kick: & Recommended
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 07:21 PM
Response to Original message
5. K AND R!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Dystopian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-06-08 12:22 AM
Response to Original message
6. KandR
Thank you.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-06-08 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
7. I think that an immediate action should be to encourage Pres. Obama
. . .to work to end the occupation in a way which doesn't just piggyback on Bush's autocratic exercise of the military. He should seek, not just consultation with Congress on the new Bush/Iraqi pact, but he should seek their approval or reworking of the pact to suit his own agenda.

It may well be that the only way he can effectively bring the troops home is to use the same unilateral 'authority' Bush used to deploy, escalate, and keep troops in Iraq. If he is serious about ending the arrogant manner in which Bush waged his occupation he shouldn't just advantage himself of that assumed authority, he should challenge Congress to step up and take responsibility for the deployment. If they won't act, then he'll have to act as Bush did; just in reverse. But if he doesn't try, he'll be codifying the anti-democratic way that Bush has operated in the absence of Congress taking the responsibility that's given them in the Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Aug 16th 2017, 09:06 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC