“President Obama has instructed us to be more open with the American people about these efforts,” Brennan explained.

I had just co-organized a Drone Summit over the weekend, where Pakistani lawyer Shahzad Akbar told us heart-wrenching stories about the hundreds of innocent victims of our drone attacks. We saw horrific photos of people whose bodies were blown apart by Hellfire missiles, with only a hand or a slab of flesh remaining. We saw poor children on the receiving end of our attacks—maimed for life, with no legs, no eyes, no future. And for all these innocents, there was no apology, no compensation, not even an acknowledgement of their losses. Nothing.

The U.S. government refuses to disclose who has been killed, for what reason, and with what collateral consequences. It deems the entire world a war zone, where it can operate at will, beyond the confines of international law.

So there I was at the Wilson Center, listening to Brennan describe our policies as ethical, “wise,” and in compliance with international law. He spoke as if the only people we kill with our drone strikes are militants bent on killing Americans. “It is unfortunate that to save innocent lives we are sometimes obliged to take lives – the lives of terrorists who seek to murder our fellow citizens.” The only mention of taking innocent lives referred to Al Qaeda. “Al Qaeda’s killing of innocent civilians, mostly Muslim men, women and children, has badly tarnished its image and appeal in the eyes of Muslims around the world.” This is true, but the same must be said of U.S. policies that fuel anti-American sentiments in the eyes of Muslims around the world.

So I stood up and in a calm voice, spoke out (video).

“Excuse me, Mr. Brennan, will you speak out about the innocents killed by the United States in our drone strikes? What about the hundreds of innocent people we are killing with drone strikes in the Philippines, in Yemen, in Somalia? I speak out on behalf of those innocent victims. They deserve an apology from you, Mr. Brennan. How many people are you willing to sacrifice? Why are you lying to the American people and not saying how many innocents have been killed?”

My heart was racing as a female security guard and then a burly Federal Protection Service policeman started pulling me out, but I kept talking.

“I speak out on behalf of Tariq Aziz, a 16-year-old in Pakistan who was killed simply because he wanted to document the drone strikes. I speak out on behalf of Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki, a 16-year-old born in Denver, killed in Yemen just because his father was someone we don’t like. I speak out on behalf of the Constitution and the rule of law.” My parting words as they dragged me out the door were, “I love the rule of law and I love my country. You are making us less safe by killing so many innocent people. Shame on you, John Brennan.”

I was handcuffed and taken to the basement of the building, where I was questioned about my background and motives. To their credit, it seems the Wilson Center thought it would not be good to have someone arrested for exercising their right to free speech, so I was released.

Brennan’s speech came the day after another U.S. drone strike in Pakistan, one that  killed three alleged militants. After the strike, the Pakistani government voiced its strongest and most public condemnation yet, accusing the United States of violating Pakistani sovereignty, calling the campaign “a total contravention of international law and established norms of interstate relations.” Earlier in April the Pakistani Parliament unanimously condemned drone strikes and established a new set of guidelines for rebuilding the country’s frayed relationship with the United States, which included the immediate cessation of all drone strikes in Pakistani territory.

The attacks in Pakistan, carried out by the CIA, started in 2004. Since then, there have been over 300 strikes. The areas where the strikes take place have been sealed off by the Pakistani security forces, so it has been difficult to get accurate reports about deaths and damages. John Brennan has denied that innocents have even been killed. Speaking in June 2011 about the preceding year, he said “there hasn’t been a single collateral death because of the exceptional proficiency, precision of the capabilities we’ve been able to develop.” Mr. Brennan later adjusted his statement somewhat, saying, “Fortunately, for more than a year, due to our discretion and precision, the U.S. government has not found credible evidence of collateral deaths resulting from U.S. counterterrorism operations outside of Afghanistan or Iraq.”

This is just not true. The UK-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism is the group that keeps the best count of casualties from U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. According to its figures, since 2004, U.S. has killed between about 2,500-3,000 people in Pakistan. Of those, between 479 and 811 were civilians, 174 of them children.

Shahzad Akbar, a Pakistani lawyer who has been representing drone victims and who started the group Foundation for Fundamental Rights, disputes even these figures and claims that the vast majority of those killed are ordinary civilians. “I have a problem with this word ‘militant.’ Most of the victims who are labeled militants might be Taliban sympathizers but they are not involved in any criminal or terrorist acts, and certainly not against the United States,” he claimed. He said the Americans often assumes that if someone wears a turban, has a beard and carries a weapon, he is a combatant. “That is a description of all the men in that region of Pakistan. It is part of their culture.” Shahzad believes that only those people who the Americans label “high-value targets”, which would be less than 200, should be considered militants; all others should be considered civilian victims.

While President Obama is gearing up for an election campaign and using his drone-strike killing spree to as a sign of his tough stance on national security, people from across the United States and around the world are organizing to rein in the drones.

Gathering in Washington DC on April 28-29, they came up with a new campaign to educate the American public about civilian deaths in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere as a result of the use of drones for illegal killing and to pressure members of Congress, President Obama, federal agencies, and state and local governments to restrict the use of drones for illegal killing and surveillance. The tactics include court challenges, delegations to the affected regions, direct action at U.S. bases from where the drones are operated, student campaigns to divest from companies involved in the production of killer drones and outreach to faith-based communities.

If you would like to get involved, make sure to sign up here.

My husband works in information technology for a large corporation. After a little encouragement from me when I mentioned the upcoming General Strike on May Day, he decided to take a “comp day” and join the action with me on May Day. Here’s why in his own words:  “I’m striking because I refuse to be part of a chastened and fearful American workforce and I am fed up with injustice … and I knew it would make you happy.”

His statement, and the “why I strike” tumblr (http://whyistrike.tumblr.com), inspired me to write my own reasons for striking:

• Because war criminals go on book tours while their victims’ corpses rot, and the families grieve.
• Because women bear the brunt of economic injustice.
• Because 22-yr-olds leave college with heavy loads of debt and few job prospects.
• Because men and women (and yes, even children) roll themselves in blankets and sleep in doorways, night after night.
• Because my friend – a professor – got a police baton in the chest when she tried to protect UC students from violent cops at Occupy Cal.
• Because “there aren’t enough funds” for childcare or shelters, but there are always enough funds for the Pentagon and the increasingly militarized police forces.

• Because financial crooks hedge their funds and shield their income from taxes and play games with the global economy.
• Because poor people have to pay large fees to cash their small paychecks.
• Because women do so much emotional labor, mostly unpaid and unthanked.
• Because 22-yr-olds leave college with heavy loads of debt and few job prospects.
• Because my friend the professor got a police baton in the chest when she tried to protect UC students from violent cops.
• Because November 2’s General Strike in Oakland was one of the most free and joyous days of my life.
• Because December 12’s West Coast Port Shutdown was filled wtih solidarity and love. Because people are counting on me to show up and speak out with them.
• Because I know I’ll have a good time. Because I know we’ll make a difference. Because I want to.
• Because I am part of the 99%. Because I’m not waiting any longer for someone else to do something to “save” us. Because the 1% need to see us in action, and I am part of that.
• Because of Mary “Mother” Jones the widowed, childless, brilliant labor organizer. Because of Malallai Joya, the Afghan woman leader. Because of women everywhere who risk their lives to go on strike, to support their men on strike, to refuse sex to men in their own form of strikes that aren’t in history books (yet).
• Because of my son. Because of my young friends and colleagues. Because of children. Because of the grandchild I hope someday to hold in my arms.
• Because I’m sick of the way things are, and because I know we can make another way, many other ways forward.

Thousands of people are taking today off work, leaving early or at least posting a sign in their window or cubicle wall showing solidarity.  I was inspired to see a May Pole go up in Union Square today.

May Day started as a struggle for the 8-hour work day in Chicago in 1886. Many people have suffered and died over the past decade of economic injustice and wars. Let’s remember the words of labor organizer Mary “Mother” Jones, who lived in Chicago in 1886: “Pray for the dead, and work like hell for the living!”

Janet Weil is the national grassroots coordinator at CODEPINK Women for Peace (www.codepink.org), and is an activist with Occupy Oakland and Women Occupy (www.womenoccupy.org).  She lives in the Bay Area, CA and can be reached at info[at]codepink.org.

In an age when U.S. power can be projected through private mercenary armies and unmanned Predator drones, the U.S. military need no longer rely on massive, conventional ground forces to pursue its imperial agenda, a fact President Barack Obama is now acknowledging. But make no mistake: while the tactics may be changing, the U.S. taxpayer – and poor foreigners abroad – will still be saddled with overblown military budgets and militaristic policies.

Speaking January 5 alongside his Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the president announced a shift in strategy for the American military, one that emphasizes aerial campaigns and proxy wars as opposed to “long-term nation-building with large military footprints.” This, to some pundits and politicians, is considered a tectonic shift.

Indeed, the way some on the left tell it, the strategy marks a radical departure from the imperial status quo. “Obama just repudiated the past decade of forever war policy,” gushed Rolling Stone reporter Michael Hastings, calling the new strategy a “[s]lap in the face to the generals.”

Conservative hawks, meanwhile, predictably declared that the sky is falling. “This is a lead from behind strategy for a left-behind America,” cried hyperventilating California Republican Buck McKeon, chairman the House Armed Services Committee. “This strategy ensures American decline in exchange for more failed domestic programs.” In McKeon’s world, feeding the war machine is preferable to feeding poor people.

Unfortunately, though, rather than renouncing empire and endless war, Obama’s stated strategy for the military going forward just reaffirms the U.S. commitment to both. Rather than renouncing the last decade of war, it states that the bloody and disastrous occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan – gently termed “extended operations” – were pursued “to bring stability to those countries.”

And Leon Panetta assured the American public that even with the changes, the U.S. would still be able to fight two major wars at the same time—and win. And Obama assured America’s military contractors and coffin makers that their lifeline – U.S. taxpayers’ money – would still be funneled their way in obscene bucket loads.

“Over the next 10 years, the growth in the defense budget will slow,” the president told reporters, “but the fact of the matter is this: It will still grow.” In fact, he added with a touch of pride, it “will still be larger than it was toward the end of the Bush administration,” totaling more than $700 billion a year and accounting for about half of the average American’s income tax. So much for the Pentagon’s budget being slashed – like we were promised – the way lawmakers are trying to cut those “failed domestic programs.”

The U.S. could cut its military spending in half tomorrow and still spend more than three times as much as its next nearest rival, China. That’s because China, instead of waging wars of choice around the world, prefers projecting its might by investing in its own country. On the other hand, the U.S. under the leadership of Obama is beefing up its military presence in China’s backyard, more interested in projecting its dwindling power than rebuilding its economy.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower once noted that every dollar going to the military is a dollar that can’t be used to provide food and shelter for those in need. Today’s obscene amount of military spending isn’t necessary if the administration wished to pursue the quaint goal of simply defending the country from invasion. Maintaining “the best-trained, best-equipped military in history,” as Obama says is his goal? That’s a different story – for a different purpose. Indeed, as Madeline Albright observed, possessing that kind of military might is no fun if you don’t get to use it, as Obama has with gusto in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya and Uganda.

The truth is that the Obama administration’s “new” strategy is more of the same—a reaffirmation of the U.S. government’s commitment to militarism for the all the usual reasons: to promote American hegemony and, by extension, the interests of politically connected capital. And U.S. officials aren’t shy about that.

Indeed, throughout the strategy document the ostensible purpose for having a military — to provide national security — repeatedly takes a backseat to promoting the economic interests of the U.S. elite that profits from empire. Repositioning U.S. forces “toward the Asia-Pacific region,” for instance – including the stationing of American soldiers in that hotbed of violent extremism, Australia – is cast not just as a means of ensuring peace and stability, but guaranteeing “the free flow of commerce.” Maintaining a global empire of bases from Europe to Okinawa isn’t necessary for self-defense, but according to Obama, ensuring – with guns – “the prosperity that flows from an open and free international economic system.”

Of course, that economic considerations shape U.S. foreign policy is nothing new. More than 25 years ago, President Jimmy Carter – that Jimmy Carter – declared in a State of the Union address that U.S. military force would be employed in the Persian Gulf, not for the cause of peace, freedom and apple pie, but to ensure “the free movement of Middle East oil.” And so it goes.

Far from affecting change, Obama is ensuring continuity. “U.S. policy will emphasize Gulf security,” states his new military strategy, in order to “prevent Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon capability and counter its destabilizing policies” — as if it’s Iran that has been destabilizing the region. And as Obama publicly proclaims his support for “political and economic reform” in the Middle East, just like every other U.S. president he not-so-privately backs their oppressors from Bahrain to Yemen and signs off on the biggest weapons deal in history to that bastion of democracy, Saudi Arabia.

Obama can talk all he wants about turning the page on a decade of war and occupation, but so long as he continues to fight wars and military occupy countries on the other side of the globe, talk is all it is. The facts, sadly, are this: since taking office Obama doubled the number of troops in Afghanistan; he fought to extend the U.S. occupation in Iraq– and partially succeeded; he dramatically expanded the use of killer drones from Pakistan to Somalia; and he requested military budgets that would make George W. Bush blush. If you want to see what his military strategy really is, forget what’s said at press conferences and in turgidly written Pentagon press releases. Just look at the record.

Charles Davis has covered Capitol Hill for public radio and the international news wire Inter Press Service. More of his work may be found on his website.

Medea Benjamin is cofounder of CODEPINK: Women for Peace and GlobalExchange.

Do you know where your money spends the night?  Wall Street banks are trashing our economy and our environment in the name of their own profits—do you buy into their corruption and greed?

It’s time to Pink Slip Big Banks and invest in a more peaceful and just future by moving your money!  How?

Here are some great resources:

•    Tool: Find a Bank or a Credit Union near you


•    Print: Download and print out our PINK SLIP BIG BANKS statement to hand into your bank when you close your account

•    Checklist: 7 Simple Steps To Move Your Checking Account

•    Make socially responsible investments as an alternative to bank CDs or money market accounts

•    Share your banking story with us! Upload a video to our website, submit a photo, or email us your story.

Moving our money is one of the powerful ongoing direct actions that has come out of the growing Occupy movement.  Join an Occupy action near you today and put your money and your body where your values are.  And meet us online at www.womenoccupy.org.

The Divine Feminine at OWS

The evolutionary advantages of bonobo lifestyle, well-known among primatologists, served as an introduction to our first Divine Feminine discussion at Occupy Wall Street. Tired of male-dominated spaces and conversations, female occupiers were insisting on the importance of coming together simply for the sake of, well, coming together. Unlike WOW (Women Occupying Wall Street), there was no agenda, no actions being planned. The purpose was solely to meet and share what was on our minds without men present.

To be perfectly honest, I entered my first Divine Feminine discussion out of duty rather than desire. I had more than enough commitments, caucuses and events competing for my time – meeting for meeting’s sake was not a priority. I was also a bit put off by the group’s name, with its whiff of gender essentialism. I was more interested in dismantling gender binaries than discussing estrogen with a bunch of earth mothers.

But I have also experienced my share of sexism at Occupy Wall Street. I have watched too many women shrink from sharing their ideas, too many temperate voices shouted out of conversations, and too many important issues squeezed off of the agenda. I have heard too many terrible stories testifying to the very real violence and dangers plaguing female occupiers as night falls. And after over a month of pushing aside the things that are most important to me – family, friends, physical health – in the name of building a better world, the idea of taking time to nurture human relationships, bonding, and conversation, hit a nerve. So I figured I would make a show of solidarity, get in touch with my Divine Femininity for a few minutes, and then get back to work.

It turned out I was not alone. Perching just outside the circle to signify their non-commitment, several attendees announced at the outset that they could only stay ten minutes, just came to check things out, “what is Divine Feminine anyway?” That’s when my friend Ketchup shared the story about the bonobos, explaining that when women spend time together, all of society benefits; when we isolate ourselves, society suffers. By the time she reached this simple conclusion, everyone had drawn in closer.

Ten minutes came and went and nobody left, except to run to a bathroom or grab a hot chocolate from the nearby falafel cart. One woman returned triumphantly wielding a large pizza and proudly announced that she had used her “Divine Feminine powers” to procure it from the OWS kitchen team. Over the course of the night it became clear to me that the value of the group, what set it apart from the 60-odd other groups operating at Occupy Wall Street, had nothing to do with biology. Rather, what kept us there was a testament to how, as one woman put it, “the feminine act of listening is beautiful and radical.”

Wendelin shares her story during our "Ambiguous Upsparkles" story session with Eve Ensler

In the past weeks I’ve experienced numerous bonobo-style communities emerge from the radical, beautiful, and sometimes challenging, act of listening at OWS. Last week after a Safer Spaces sleep-out, as we drank our coffee and rolled up our sleeping bags, the person I slept next to suggested everyone play a game. I was about to skip it when, realizing I hadn’t even learned my fellow safe-spacer’s name, I checked myself and decided to stick around. After five minutes of the silly exercise – depicting our hairstyle evolution on pieces of cardboard – it was clear that we would no longer need a pink flag to demarcate the safe space we had created among one another. Just the day before the sleepout, two people I had never met separately, mysteriously, showed up to lend support as I was facilitating a meeting that threatened to be disrupted. I later learned they were friends of someone with whom I had locked tear-filled eyes during a particularly moving moment of the story-sharing session I help coordinate. After the session we had bonded over the experience, and when I briefly mentioned the meeting, she silently enlisted everyone she knew to attend. Like bonobos, they showed up to protect the group’s ideas against violence and possible “infanticide.”

Haircut evolution: post sleep-out games with Safer Spaces

Which brings me back to evolution. In the early days of Occupy Wall Street, before Divine Feminine and WOW were formed, I found my home in the Speak-Easy Caucus. Like WOW, Speak-Easy originated as a safe space for voices and ideas that were being pushed out of the larger conversation of the General Assembly. Originally open to anyone who did not identify as 100% male, Speak-Easy later evolved to include a spectrum of individuals, from female-bodied people identifying as women to male-bodied people who did not identify as traditionally masculine. Although it made sense for Speak-Easy to include a diversity of people, including men, who had difficulty having their voices heard, many women felt it was also important to maintain a safe space exclusively for women and non-males – and thus, WOW was born. Speak-Easy itself would later disband as many of its members became active in the Queer Caucus.

This week the entire structure of the General Assembly and Occupy Wall Street will evolve to adopt the spokes council model passed by the General Assembly on Friday. The spokes council model is meant to improve coordination, accessibility and transparency at Occupy Wall Street and to better empower marginalized voices in groups such as WOW, the Queer Caucus and the People of Color Working Group to communicate their needs and be involved in decision-making. The model is not without its critics – it has undergone countless revisions, been the subject of daily teach-ins, and was presented to the General Assembly on four occasions before finally achieving approval by a 9/10 consensus on Friday. The adopted proposal is itself a living document, and was accepted with the understanding that it would continue to evolve in response to the many concerns raised by members of the OWS community.

It’s no surprise that Occupy Wall Street is far from perfect. But what I have witnessed in the evolution of Occupy Wall Street, what differentiates us from dominant society and makes this movement worth fighting for, is a genuine willingness to confront our problems and create a community where all voices can be truly equal. We have a lot working against us, not the least of which is centuries of practice doing things the other way – building hierarchies based on race, class and gender, protecting systems of privilege and rewarding the loudest and most dominant voices. But slowly, together, we are learning how to listen.

I’ve heard people poke fun at the emphasis we put on “Process” at Occupy Wall Street. To me, the beautiful and radical act of listening is not about feminine or masculine, but simply about respect – respect for each other and, yes, for our agreed-upon (and ever-evolving) processes of communicating and interacting. When process breaks down – when groups operate without consensus, people and ideas are attacked, voices are silenced – there is no criteria of inclusion that can enforce a “safe space.”

Without respect for each other, we are nothing but chimpanzees. In order to survive, we must learn to live like bonobos. And the more we continue to evolve together, the better the chances that evolution will one day lead to revolution.

Yesterday afternoon, as members of the Occupy Wall Street demonstration rallied in solidarity with postal workers in New York City, I received the following letter of support from the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW):

Solidarity letter from Canadian Union of Postal Workers [click to enlarge]

“Your actions in demanding justice, fairness, equality and peace inspire us. You are smart, strategic, creative, non violent and inclusive.”

Every day we Occupy Wall Street I am fueled and inspired by gestures of solidarity from around the world. Last week members of CODEPINK LA sent pizza to the demonstration; on Monday morning, two CODEPINK supporters visiting from Canada stopped by Liberty Plaza on their way to the airport and were inspired to make a donation; yesterday I received news that a “care package” is on its way to Liberty Plaza from our PINK sisters in San Francisco Bay Area.

Every contribution and every message of solidarity strengthens the 99%.

Thank you for your support.