I recently watched the movie J. Edgar, a biography of the J. Edgar Hoover/FBI story.  The most memorable moment was the scene of Hoover addressing a crowd after the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby.  After Hoover gives a rousing speech about the lack of any competent tracking system for criminals in the United States and pushes for tougher laws on surveillance of American citizens, the crowd applauds uproariously. Hoover started a new wave of intelligence gathering on radical groups, individuals and “subversives.” His methods included infiltration, burglaries, illegal wiretaps, and planted evidence.  Whether the shock of the Lindbergh kidnapping had anything to do with the acceptance of Hoover’s attack on civil liberties is up to historians to decide but a pattern does emerge—when tragic events occur in our history, there is always some equally horrible backlash which threaten our civil rights in a way that is nothing short of dangerous.

After the attacks on 9/11, the United States hastily passed the Patriot Act, as well as other draconian laws which were readily accepted by millions of Americans as if there would be no future consequences. In December 2011, the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) was passed through a signing statement by the Obama administration. The signing of this act was no surprise-the National Defense Authorization Act itself has been signed into law every year.

One of its main objectives is to allow the government to continue funding national security interests and the military. Among the numerous disappointments in the NDAA, is contained within sub-sections 1021 and 1022, which deal with the Indefinite Detention of persons, including U.S. citizens, the government suspects of involvement in terrorism. The detention sections of the NDAA are an extension of the AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force) which was passed after the 9/11 attacks.

Despite the push-back by some politicians, (Dianne Feinstein among others) to remove the provisions which allow the government to detain US citizens, the bill was passed. The ACLU raised its concerns at the legal implications of this act, specifically, the President’s authority to hold those who the government claim to be terrorists indefinitely, which could include U.S. citizens arrested on American soil, including arrests by members of the Armed Forces. The future implications of this bill could not be clearer. I predict a chilling effect on organizations that challenge the government’s policies or in the case of Bradley Manning, actually expose the government for conducting illegal activities.

As for the Guantanamo detainees who languish indefinitely in prison, the United States will continually be viewed as utter hypocrites in the eyes of the Middle East and the entire world as we preach to them about democracy and the rule of law, and then keep detainees locked up for years, if not indefinitely. The outcry from the so-called “constitutional purists” on the right (and the left) in Congress could not be more tepid. Sadly, the enactment of these “tough on crime” laws set legal precedents and are viewed by many Americans as the “cost of freedom” in order that we may live in a free society. How ironic.

As a member of Code Pink and Women Occupy who practice non-violent civil disobedience, I have to ask, at what point does civil disobedience becomes a “terrorist threat?” Am I being paranoid to think that there may come a time when any civil disobedience will be viewed as a threat to national security?  And what will the consequences be if certain protest organizations are label as “domestic terrorists”?  Indefinite imprisonment? Witness the latest scenes of Occupy Wall Street in New York and Oakland and the violent treatment and mass arrests of young protesters and you may be able to envision a day when people exercising their 1st amendment rights may be viewed as terrorist threats.

Code Pink, Women Occupy and other progressive and peace organizations will continue to raise our voices against these laws and persuade cities and municipalities to create laws to counter all future threats to our individual civil rights and demand an end to indefinite detention for Americans and non-Americans. These laws are not in keeping with the vision our founding fathers had for this country. As we wait for these changes, we must have action and continue to expose the federal government for being the threat that it truly is.

Do you remember the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act? It’s a nasty piece of legislation which allows for indefinite detention, without a trial, of anyone suspected of aiding terrorists anywhere in the world—including US citizens.

The House of Representatives passed the revised version of the NDAA last week. The Senate passed this final version of the NDAA today. Although President Obama initially indicated he would veto the legislation, a veto seems less likely now that certain provisions have been added—namely, a guarantee that the power to decide who should be imprisoned indefinitely without trial should be granted to the President, not Congress. In other words, Obama is not opposed to the 2012 NDAA’s blatantly unconstitutional disregard for human rights, so much as hairsplitting over which branch of government should have the authority to violate said human rights. This should come as no surprise, since as Glenn Greenwald points out, indefinite detention without trial has been a feature of the so-called War on Terror from the very beginning.

Nevertheless, CODEPINK believes that the 2012 NDAA is bad news indeed. The wording is very unclear: while the 2012 NDAA allows the US to detain people “under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities,” it does not define what “hostilities” are, and it does not indicate what needs to happen for us to have reached an “end” to said hostilities. This is not just an issue of semantics; indeed, the vagueness of this language creates a framework that reaches its logical and sinister conclusion in the remarks of Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who called the United States of America “part of the battlefield” in the so-called War on Terror.

The 2012 NDAA effectively leaves the door wide open for human rights abuses so egregious that if they were to take place almost anywhere else in the world (Iran, for instance, or North Korea—or Afghanistan and Iraq for that matter), Congress would, at the very least, pretend to express outrage.  Within the United States, however, passing legislation that has the potential to turn a democracy into a police state of Orwellian proportions is presented not only as acceptable, but necessary, all in the name of “national security.”

We must continue to speak out against war, militarism, violence, and the US government’s latest attacks on our movement and our rights.

His speech has gotten attention from across the media spectrum. According to Rachel Maddow, the mainstream press unfairly focused on the critical points in his speech. Black commentators have had mixed reactions to his demand to “stop complainin’.” ColorLines points out that the CBC has been working on job creation longer than the American Jobs Act has been in existence. African-American author Karen Hunter claims the AP’s transcription of the speech is “inherently racist” because it was published as spoken, with dropped g’s. Tavis Smiley was particularly incensed, asking Representative Sheila Jackson Lee if Obama would dare to tell Jews, Latinos, or any other constituency to stop complaining.

Personally, I agree with Smiley’s criticism. And as a fan of Zora Neale Hurston, I reject the idea that transcribing speech as it is said is “inherently racist.” I agree that we need to get moving.

But here’s the thing – until the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are ended, until all troops and war profiteers come home, until all people have the right to marry and all gender identities are accepted, until everyone has food to eat, a home to live in, free education, universal, single-payer healthcare, until nuclear power and nuclear weapons are abolished, until our infrastructure is rebuilt and the water and power industries are fully regulated, until significant money is spent on research in renewable, sustainable energy, I will march on. And I wont waste a minute of my time or a dime of money on political campaigns. We need to continue occupying Wall Street, challenging Obama at every public appearance he makes, and gathering in Freedom Plaza. Politicians wont hand us change. Just as the New Deal was forged because of the demands of people in the streets, just as Civil Rights laws were enacted because people refused to condone racism, we must continue to challenge the empire. Will you join me in telling Obama to Make Jobs, Not War?

The “compromise” approved by the House today and expected to pass the Senate tomorrow is an atrocity. It is a rich man’s coup of our democracy. Consider this: absolutely no tax increases are included in the bill. It creates a “super Congress,” with authority to slash social services when the country is still reeling from the recession. As Robert Reich noted, the President paid a ransom when there was absolutely no reason to link the increase of the debt ceiling with cutting the budget deficit.

Last week, the NY Times published, and The Atlantic promoted, a revealing graphic, reminding us how this deficit was created: with tax breaks to the rich and unfunded and unnecessary wars. Remember this when the mainstream media focuses in on the particulars of what is happening this week. Beltway leadership will not admit that it was spending decisions made during the Bush administration that led to this point.

Who will be affected the most by the budget cuts? Women, of course. Susan Feiner delineates the ways the plan balances the budget on the backs of women in the Ms. blog. If cuts in Social Security and unemployment insurance don’t piss you off, maybe the idea of cutting safety inspections will. Between those cuts and the perennial lack of funding for infrastructure modernization, you can expect more poop in your water in the coming years.

As Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus noted, the debt deal is a ‘sugar-coated Satan sandwich.’ Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, denounced the deal as a give-away to the rich and corporations on the backs of working people and warned that both parties stand at a crossroads. The House of Representatives has already sold the American people down the river, will the Senate do the same?

Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) pointed out today that the media committed malpractice in covering the debt ceiling debate. The ‘center’ has been defined far away from public sentiment and few people acknowledge the cause of the deficit or the fact that the debt ceiling can be raised without cutting vital social programs.

How did we get to this point? The National Organization for Women (NOW) thinks the lack of female leadership in the negotiations was one reason real human needs weren’t taken into account. Many men are calling for the people to march on Washington, from Keith Olbermann to Rep. John Conyers (MI-D)

Join the feminist response to the rich man’s coup. Join CODEPINK in DC as we call on Congress and the President to Bring Our War $$ Home, tax the rich, and create jobs through increased federal spending. Can’t make it to the nation’s capital? Develop a cultural response to ten years and counting of war and corporate welfare through Create, Not Hate. We are the nonviolent resistance needed to overturn this shameful usurpation of democracy. Join the PINK Team today.

I was happy that Representative Waxman, my Congressional representative, invited us into his office to speak with him. Tighe explained how it felt to be a Californian and a member of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla and how frustrating it was to have no support from the State Department. He and Medea asked Waxman if he would help the US citizen owners of the boat get the US-flagged vessel out of the Greek military port where it is stuck. I’m hopeful that we can follow up with him and other members of Congress with concrete ways to support this effort – perhaps a letter from multiple members of Congress to the State Department to help us get US property back in the hands of US citizens.

The part of the conversation that was devastating was when Rep Waxman explained his opinion on Palestinian statehood. He claims that going to the United Nations for recognition violates the Oslo Accords and that it will undermine the peace process and not help create a two-state solution. As a practicing Jew and a peace activist, it’s hard for me to understand this position. Israel initially received international recognition because it was recognized as an independent state by the United Nations. The UN is the global body that was created partially to provide a peaceful way for new states to emerge. It is also the space where international disputes should be negotiated, to help avert war. That’s why we have a United Nations. So it shocks me that my representative dismisses the UN in this situation. What makes Israel and Palestine different from the rest of the world? What makes it a special case that should be negotiated outside the realm of the global body politic? It frightens me that the desire to support Israelis can blind US politicians from the government bodies that are so vital to creating a just, peaceful world. Waxman’s last message was that going to the UN would not be helpful to creating a two state solution, which he hopes is the goal we’re seeking. In my opinion, this is a strange, strange thing to ask US activists. I believe in the right of self-determination. As a US citizen, I have no right to tell people in the Middle East what their final political state(s) should look like. My advocacy is to support the right for every single person to live in an internationally recognized state and to have their political, cultural, and economic rights recognized. Why is this such a horrific position?

At Representative Sherman’s office, we also sang “Don’t Buy Israeli,” the BDS song to the tune of Hava Nagila. I spend most of my time focused on stopping the US war machine, trying to end the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. Knowing the intransigence of the US body politic, and the fact that both the Palestinian and Israeli peace communities support BDS, it felt really good to be a part of both of these actions.

Viva CODEPINK! Free Palestine!

CODEPINK Maine members meet with Rep Pingree in her Portland, Maine office

Sometimes we activists ask ourselves: how many times do we need to contact our elected representatives to let them know how we feel about out of control spending on the military?  When we call their offices, are they even listening? The staffers who answer their office phones are polite and assure us they will pass along the message. We can often develop a relationship with policy aides if we work at it. But are we really getting through?

This week a coalition of peace and justice workers teamed up to send a targeted message on the eve of the FY 2012 Defense Authorization vote. More than one hundred organizations, both national and grassroots, from all over the country, signed a letter to the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) urging support for Rep. Barbara Lee’s amendment to restrict spending on Afghanistan to getting out now in an orderly fashion, and demanding a NO vote on the $648.7 billion defense bill, including $118 billion to continue the wars.

The letter, which can be read online, called on the CPC to lead the way out of the wilderness of economic distress by bringing the war dollars home and reinvesting them in jobs, schools, and other real human needs. It pointed out that the U.S. Conference of Mayors overwhelmingly passed their own war dollars home resolution last month in Baltimore.

Rep. Lee referenced the historic resolution – the first time the mayors had addressed war spending since the height of the Vietnam War in 1971 – in her remarks on the floor of the House prior to the vote. CODEPINK played a leading role in drafting the resolution, and gathering mayoral support for its passage – so we were very excited to hear Rep. Lee mention it in the Congressional debate!

CODEPINK helped draft the CPC letter and the press advisory announcing it, and of course gathered many of the signatures. And we committed in the letter to support Progressive Caucus members of Congress who stick their necks out to speak against war funding demanded by the Obama Administration.

We know our representatives are pressured by their party leadership to toe the line and vote yes on legislation that continues to pour tax dollars into the coffers of weapon systems manufacturers. Reps who listen to their constituents rather than their own party face the threat of losing campaign funding for re-election.

How better to support your rep than by letting her or him know you’re paying attention and you support them when they do the right thing, and vote to bring our war dollars home?

Pat Taub, C.J. Minster, Lisa Savage and Willy Ritch in Rep. Pingree's office April 4, 2011.

One sign that you’re getting through: a return call like the one I had last week from Willy Ritch, Policy Advisor & Communications Director for Rep. Chellie Pingree. Willy wanted to send me links to media coverage of the Congresswoman from Maine speaking out about the need to bring the troops and the money home from Afghanistan. Her message made the front page of the Portland Press Herald, and re-reading it made me realize that I hadn’t called her office today.

So I just did. Why not join me? Congressional switchboard: 202-225-3121