Early in the morning on February 25, the United States Air Force test-launched a first-strike, nuclear-capable Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) despite the largest anti-test demonstrations in almost 30 years. The launch took place in the dark fog of night at 2:46 a.m. from Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) on the central California coast, firing the missile to the other end of the Ronald Reagan Missile Range in the Marshall Islands over 4,000 miles away. Despite the military’s ability to follow through with the test, the offensive nature of delivery systems and the threatening message of their test flights is growing in significance in anti-nuclear circles around the globe.

The next test-launch was scheduled for March 1, extremely soon after last Saturday’s test, but was canceled abruptly on Tuesday, just as a media campaign began to cancel the test. March 1 is the anniversary of the tragic “Castle Bravo” test of a hydrogen bomb in the Bikini atoll for which the swimwear received its name. That test dropped radioactive fallout on the people of Rongelap, leading to catastrophic health and genetic problems that continue to this day, necessitating the on-going evacuation of their island. It also sparked the Japanese anti-nuclear movement which had been prevented to exist under the U.S. occupation that followed World War II. The Lucky Dragon #5 fishing vessel, a Japanese ship, was also caught in the fallout of the March 1 test.

Read the rest of this article »

A ground-based interceptor launched Sunday afternoon from Vandenberg Airforce Base in California.

One of the most infuriating retorts I hear from police, guards and counter-demonstrators is that we, as demonstrators, must be at least somewhat grateful that we live in a society in which we can come out with signs and banners and espouse our views without being shot. Somehow, we are a testament to the freedom they are stifling. They see themselves as protecting our right to assemble and speak freely, even as they are not letting us speak, arresting us or worse. And they do it all capriciously, creating and then ignoring designated protest areas on a whim. They don’t let us talk to “the opposition” even when they are acquaintances. They don’t even respect their own lines and fences.

At Vanbenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) in Lompoc, California there is no longer any pretense of the right to peaceably assemble. Last Sunday, eight members of Vandenberg Witness were arrested for a “Violation of Security Regulation” and three more were given “ban and bar” notices even though they never entered the base. In fact, they stayed in the designated protest area and identified themselves as instructed. They were simply carrying letters of opposition from six different international organizations.

When asked why she was given two tickets, longtime organizer MacGregor Eddy of Salinas, CA was told by an arresting officer, “One is for showing up and one is for being here.” Another woman, Jude Evered of Goleta, CA, was held on the ground by two security guards, despite being in her eighties, with a soldier’s knee in her back. Her booking was interrupted because she had to be taken to the hospital in an ambulance (notably, without police or MPs) for a shoulder injury she sustained after she was in custody.

Such harsh action against protesters at military bases has been on the rise, largely because there has never been a court ruling on whether the military can take obstructive action outside the fenced area of the base. Furthermore, no prosecutor or ACLU lawyer has taken any such case to court.

Read the rest of this article »

The recent demonstration by antiwar activists on the Georgia Tech campus, in which audience members turned their backs on General Petraeus, is reminiscent of an attempt to disrupt a talk by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert at last year’s World Affairs Council in San Francisco. Both actions challenge activists to consider effective methods of communication and audience outreach, particularly in an effort to stop the further dissemination of war propaganda during public speeches.

In the Georgia Tech case, silently standing in a large auditorium allowed Petraeus to continue unabated. Also, many people in the audience seemed oblivious to the political action and the security response. For the participants, it seemed like a powerful personal statement, but as a public witness, it seemed only somewhat effective. Petraeus surely knew what was going on, but many in the auditorium did not. Speaking truth to power happened, but speaking truth to people less so (a distinction I heard Noam Chomsky make some years ago). Still, I thank the protesters for carrying out their action.

In the San Francisco case, organized by several of my personal friends and long-time activist associates, the audience was very aware of the action, which was far more disruptive in intent and effect.

As much as I liked the serial disruption approach, the need to scream became less as time went on and anyone standing up, even whispering, would have created a problem for Olmert and the audience. Instead of yelling, which likely jarred the audience into sympathy for Olmert, it would have been more effective to speak with a more normal voice and engage with attendees on a personal level. Neutral audience members might have remained open to the demonstrators’ points about free speech and the problem of giving a platform to someone defending crimes against humanity.

More such actions are necessary. I am reminded fondly of a night in Berkeley some years ago when so many people demonstrated outside of a planned talk by Benjamin Netanyahu that he decided not to give his presentation at all. We felt very powerful that night. I look forward to developing more effective approaches to carrying out actions like this. The potential to shift attitudes of questioning people is great.

Today is Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday, not the national holiday which is Monday. As an activist member of Jewish Voice for Peace, I have at times faced counter-demonstrations while I speak out against unjustifiable atrocities being committed allegedly for me and by “my” side. Being from the United States, I could be doubly responsible for the US/Israeli treatment of the Palestinians. As a long-time member of the War Resisters League, King and I share a belief that (in his words) “social change comes more meaningfully through nonviolence,” that the “business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation’s homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love,” and that God didn’t choose “America as his divine, messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world.” 42 years have passed since he was assassinated.

So I am perplexed when I see “pro-Israel” signs that extol Martin Luther King’s defense of Israel, using quotes (which I also am fond of doing) by the late revolutionary, but in their case, highlighting things he said that seem to place him on “their” side of the police line, not mine. On the occasion of his birth, newsletters of synagogues may even have articles touting King as a staunch defender of Israel’s right to defend itself. They take quotes from 42 years ago as I do, to make our points. Certainly, after the Six Day War of 1967 (and before), King defended Israel. However, events of the last two score years I think would have reinforced King’s pacifism and “eternal hostility towards militarism, racism and economic exploitation.” He never would have become an anti-Semite, but I do think facts on the ground would have led him to become quite critical of Israel. I want to briefly mention five specific issues that would have negatively effected King’s perspective on Israel:

Read the rest of this article »

Last Saturday, about 30 activists demonstrated outside of the Los Angeles Air Force Base (LAAFB) in El Segundo, CA. The “Space and Missile Center” located there is used to monitor launches from Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) about 160 miles northwest of LAAFB. The timing was set to precede the test of a Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) from VAFB early the next morning. The Vandenberg and El Segundo bases are also used to receive and distribute communications via satellite for the targeting of conventional weapons by ground forces and airplanes as well as hunter-killer Predator and Reaper unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). These air-strikes are increasingly implicated in widespread civilian casualties despite attempts by the military to downplay them and reduce their number.

There hadn’t been a demonstration at LAAFB for many years, so this was seen as groundbreaking by the organizers. Given the obscurity of the base, and the lack of recent organizing about its mission, the turnout was seen as encouraging. More actions will probably be forthcoming.

From midnight until 3:30am Sunday morning about a dozen people also demonstrated outside the main gate of VAFB. Despite the late hour, there was a fair amount of traffic as some members of the base community and press arrived to watch the launch from an official viewing site. At 1:30 am, Fr. Louis Vitale, OFM and Sr. Megan Rice, SHCJ tried to enter the base to present a letter to the base commander from Japanese opponents to such missile tests. A guard did take the letter, though she did not unequivocally state that she would deliver it. When the two activists were stopped from entering the base they knelt and prayed. The citations mentioned “entering federal installation without permission.” They were released about an hour later and escorted across the highway from the base entrance. Future legal proceedings are “to be determined;” no date for court appearances were set.

The Japanese letter, signed by over 150 people and groups, made the point that the US frequently tests ICBMs that in fact are functional, can travel over 6,000 miles, can be launched on a moment’s notice and can carry three nuclear warheads. Such tests make it hypocritical to seriously reprimand or sanction North Korea for its recent missile tests, which would actually take 2 to 3 days to prepare for launch, only can travel several hundred miles, are not inter-continental, and as yet aren’t able of being loaded with nuclear bombs. Until the actions opposing Sunday morning’s test launch, they were unaware that the US was testing ICBMs too.

Read the rest of this article »