Olympia Port Militarization Resistance

Port Wants Military Shipments

2010-08-15T06:45:00.000-07:00

Despite any potential reduction in troop levels, I remain strongly opposed to the use of the port for military shipments. This is because the truth, as I see it, is of a continuing imperialism by the USA—and imperialism is unacceptable to me.

In the following article by Matt Batcheldor, which discusses Port and City officials' positions on the potential for renewed military shipments through Olympia, Barner is quoted as being "opposed to the war" but in support of military personnel.

Real support for the soldiers and other working people in the military requires resistance, that is—concerted, assertive, and vigorous resistance—to the principle of aggression. —Berd

http://www.theolympian.com/2010/08/15/1336539/plea-for-protest-policy.html

Plea for protest policy

Olympia: Board considers response, potential costs if activists show at port

MATT BATCHELDOR; Staff writer | • Published August 15, 2010

OLYMPIA – The Olympia City Council is studying how to respond if military shipments again are routed through the Port of Olympia, a possibility supported by port commissioners.

Councilwoman Rhenda Strub brought up the topic at the end of Tuesday’s City Council meeting. She said the city needs a policy for military shipments and also needs to study how to recoup any costs the city incurs after a shipment.

Strub said she’s bringing up the issue now because Port Commissioner George Barner recently pledged his support for bringing in more military shipments. Because the military is drawing down troops in Iraq, cargo shipments could soon be streaming back to the United States – potentially through the Port of Olympia.

Barner and the other two port commissioners said they support compensating the city for its costs.

“I don’t see anything wrong with that,” Barner said. “I think that’s part of the cost of doing business.”

The city should consider requiring the port to post a bond before any protest to cover costs the city might incur, Strub said. She’s not sure if that’s legally possible but said the city should look into it.

The city’s scrutiny of the issue comes nearly three years after war protests at the port during a military shipment cost the city at least $112,168, mostly in police overtime. The port ended up reimbursing the city $70,000, and the city gave $7,243 of that to Tumwater for overtime that its officers incurred during the November 2007 protests. It is unknown how much money the port earned from the shipments.

Police made more than 60 arrests, and there was a cost of time and money from the city’s municipal court system.

There have been multiple claims and lawsuits against the city related to the protests. It is named in one pending federal civil rights lawsuit involving John Towery, a former employee of Joint Base Lewis-McChord who is accused of spying on anti-war activists.

“They (the port) shouldn’t have put that burden on us in the first place,” Strub said in an interview. “It dribbled along over several days. The protest had time to really build and just turn into a debacle.”

City Manager Steve Hall said the real cost of the strife in 2007 wasn’t just financial.

“For me, the biggest cost is the breach of trust between the community – some community members – and members of the city staff because of the port protest,” he said.

Strub’s proposal was referred to the council’s general government committee, headed by Councilman Craig Ottavelli. He said he isn’t sure when the committee will look into the matter; it depends on a conversation with the port about how urgent the military cargo issue is.

“It could be anywhere from three to six months, I’m guessing, before we would see any actual armed forces or military cargo ships calling on the port,” Barner said.

Strub said the city has a responsibility to maintain public safety, but she doesn’t think city police should continue to break up groups of protesters who block city streets. She said private contractors picked fights with protesters during the 2007 shipments.

“I think we should tell them we’re not going to provide police security for private contractors and the Department of Defense,” she said. “I support the military in their goal. I’m not taking a position against them, but we don’t have the resources that the Department of Defense has.

“The City of Olympia should not be asked to make a greater sacrifice in support of the military than the rest of the country.”

Hall said that after recent budget cuts, the city doesn’t have enough officers to provide security, and the port should bring in other jurisdictions to provide it if it schedules military shipments.

Barner cited a recent survey conducted by Saint Martin’s University that shows that 69 percent of people in Thurston County support bringing military shipments through the port.

“I don’t support the war, but I support our armed forces personnel at all levels,” he said.

Port Commissioner Jeff Davis echoed Barner’s sentiments.

“This is a public port, and we’re dealing with public entities here,” he said. “I’m passionate about the military being able to come into any port in the state of Washington.”

Port Commissioner Bill McGregor said the port discussed bringing in more military shipments about a year ago.

“The city said that they weren’t ready yet to do this,” he said.

“We’ve been willing, more than willing, to look at sharing those (city) expenses,” he said.

Matt Batcheldor: 360-704-6869 mbatcheldor@theolympian.com

State v. Imani

2010-08-13T21:29:00.000-07:00

The jury returned a verdict of guilty. There's more information, and your can view the photo larger, on OlyBlog, here: State v. Imani, and on Peace is Possible, here: From Tacoma.

Wikileaks and Necessity Defense

2010-08-08T22:55:00.000-07:00

[correction: Patty has informed me that Emma K. (Herrera) is not scheduled to be part of the trial.]

Members of Iraq Veterans Against the War are working to flesh out and give meaning to the stories massive dump of formerly secret US government documents that are now available at Wikileaks http://wikileaks.org/.

This is interesting because:

The previously postponed Imani/~~Herrera~~ trial, in which the defendants have been granted the ability to defend themselves based on the necessity of their actions, will resume this week in Tacoma;

And Daniel Ellsberg, who is famous for releasing the Pentagon Papers, is scheduled to be in town as a witness for the defense.

I just saw Patty today, who showed me a short blurb in a magazine (I don't which magazine, maybe Time,) with a photo of Ellsberg and a short statement that he wished the "Pentagon Papers" for Afghanistan would be released now—not 5 years or 30 years from now—but now. As in NOW!

Well, with the files that have been uploaded to wikileaks now available for all to see, we just might have our wish.

Good luck to the Imani/~~Herrera~~ defense team in their trial this week.

Although it seems to me that they have already won. They were victorious when they stood up against the harmful establishment of US imperialism.

What this trial is really about are the immoral and illegal actions of the US Government. Go Imani/~~Herrera~~!

The Troops are Waking Up

2010-08-03T17:49:00.001-07:00

The Troops are Waking Up

Long Live the Resistance!

2010-07-26T17:55:00.000-07:00

Long Live the Resistance!

A Relic from November 2007

2010-05-18T17:09:00.000-07:00

KOMO News: Dozens Arrested in Protest of Iraq War
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/11269046.html?tab=video

Necessity Defense Trial Delayed

2010-04-27T22:10:00.000-07:00

The Imani-Herrera trial has been postponed due to the illness of a witness. The trial is scheduled to resume in August. Hoping and praying for a speedy recovery.

April 2010 Strykers Spotted

2010-04-09T00:50:00.000-07:00

Strykers were spotted near JBLM (Joint Base Lewis-McChord, formerly Fort Lewis and McChord Air Force Base) on Wednesday, April 7. The vehicles were loaded on a train.

Regarding the Possible Renewed Use of the Port of Olympia for Shipment of MIlitary Cargo

2010-04-01T09:54:00.000-07:00

To: Port of Olympia Commissioners
Olympia City Council
Thurston County Commissioners

From: Lawrence Mosqueda, Ph.D.

Date: March 25, 2010

Re: Possible Renewed Use of Port of Olympia for Military Shipments

It has come to my attention that the Port of Olympia Commissioners are again considering using the Port of Olympia to ship military equipment to and from the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This would be a terrible mistake, both legally and morally.

As you know, over the past three years many Olympia residents, South Sound residents and others have protested and resisted the use of the Port for illegal wars. These protests have been relatively peaceful, except for attacks from police and from those whom the police have allowed to harass the protesters. Much has been written about these protests and I will not repeat all of the issues that have arisen. However, I will summarize and cite some of the sources that I, and others, have used to explain why the Port of Olympia should not participate in these illegal wars. I would ask that you read this carefully and submit it to your staff for discussion.

I. Illegality of Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

The first point has been well documented by those who have studied these wars for more than eight years now. In addition to being a bad policy as a war of aggression in Iraq, built on lies that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction or that Iraq was complicit in 9/11 (even George Bush does not believe that anymore1) -- the war in Iraq has conclusively been demonstrated to be an ILLEGAL war built on false premises and lies from the Bush administration. Eight years ago, some could argue that this might be a debatable assertion, by 2010 it should be accepted as fact.

I wrote an article, “A Duty to Disobey All Illegal Orders,” on February 26, 2003 which pointed out that the upcoming Bush/U.S. war in Iraq did not meet any criteria for a legal or “just” war, and that the U.S. military had an affirmative obligation to disobey illegal orders under the oath taken at the time of induction and under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Please see the article at http://www.counterpunch.org/mosqueda02272003.html. This article has been reprinted on the web and elsewhere many times. In addition to the sources I cited in the article, many prominent scholars, lawyers and others have added significant research on the illegality of the U.S. war in Iraq [2]. At some unguarded moments, even those who aided in this criminal war planning have admitted that the war was illegal. See the admission by Richard Perle, a member of the Defense Policy Board, at http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/nov/20/usa.iraq [1] (2003).

The war in Afghanistan is equally illegal, as pointed out by many international lawyers, scholars and other prominent authors. As Marjorie Cohn, President of the National Lawyers Guild, has stated:

The invasion of Afghanistan was not legitimate self-defense under article 51 of the (U.N.) charter because the attacks on Sept. 11 were criminal attacks, not "armed attacks" by another country. Afghanistan did not attack the United States. In fact, 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, there was not an imminent threat of an armed attack on the United States after Sept. 11, or Bush would not have waited three weeks before initiating his October 2001 bombing campaign. The necessity for self-defense must be "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." This classic principle of self-defense in international law has been affirmed by the Nuremberg Tribunal and the U.N. General Assembly. [3]

The wars did not become legal under international law or national law just because we have now transferred authority of the Presidency from the original perpetrator of the wars to a more articulate, more intelligent person in 2009. The Iraq war does not become more legitimate, more legal, or more moral by a dubious “drawdown” that will take many more years to complete, if ever. The war in Afghanistan does not become more legitimate or more legal by a “surge,” in fact, it becomes even more illegal.

The citizens of our area have done a great service for us as they have made the conduct and continuation of the wars a local and national issue. An illegal war must be stopped, not slowed down.

II. Right and Obligation to Protest and Resist

In addition to having a right to protest and resist the flawed foreign policy of these illegal wars of aggression, the citizens of Olympia and elsewhere have a RIGHT and an OBLIGATION to resist under international and domestic law. I stated in my article, “A Duty to Disobey All Illegal Orders,” (page 3):

As Hamilton Action for Social Change has noted “Under the Nuremberg Principles, you have an obligation NOT to follow the orders of leaders who are preparing crimes against peace and crimes against humanity. We are all bound by what U.S. Chief Prosecutor Robert Jackson declared in 1948: [T]he very essence of the [Nuremberg] Charter is that individuals have intentional duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual state." At the Tokyo War Crimes trial, it was further declared "[A]nyone with knowledge of illegal activity and an opportunity to do something about it is a potential criminal under international law unless the person takes affirmative measures to prevent commission of the crimes.

Those who have protested and resisted at the Port over the past few years are exercising their legal obligations under the laws that the U.S. government created, along with the other allies, after WWII. I am quite sure that the citizens of the area will again resist any effort to use the Port for the purpose of illegal wars.

The Port itself also has an OBLIGATION to follow the law and not to continue to participate in the war crimes of the Bush legacy and the continuing war crime activity of the Obama administration. At the very least, the Port should continue (as in the past year) NOT to be used as an entry and departure point for arms and equipment for these illegal wars. For more courage, the Port should DECLARE that it will not allow itself to be used for the wars, because of their illegal nature.

Some have said that we need to use to Port for transporting military equipment to “Support the Troops.” Being complicit in the continuing war efforts is not “supporting the troops.” As I stated in my previously cited article from 2003, support for the troops is not done by supporting the actions of the U.S. government:

The idea that those who oppose the Bush plans for war are against the troops is a fundamental lie. Support for the troops is not done by sending them off to a war which is fundamentally unnecessary—support is keeping them home. Support for the troops is not done by lying to them about the purpose and goals of the war and allowing those who will benefit and profit a free ride on the backs of the troops. Support for the troops is not done by making them complicit in an illegal and immoral war—it is done by exposing the lies and giving the troops an opportunity not to be complicit in war crimes.

By 2010, over 6,000 Americans have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, and over a million Iraqis and Afghans have been killed. (See British Lancet study of 2006 with the estimate of 600,000 dead in Iraq alone, http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(06)69491-9/abstract ). Millions of Iraqis and Afghans have become refugees, and large numbers in their populations suffer with injuries and disease caused by war.

There are literally hundreds of thousands of Americans who suffer from PTSD and other injuries. See, for example, http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/565407. Every day that we allow these illegal wars to continue, we allow more death and destruction on all sides.

There are some who have argued that we have an obligation to follow our national “leaders” and open our ports and other public services to their business and facilitate their wishes. It should be remembered that several of the persons convicted by the U.S. at the Nuremberg trials were not those who actually got their hands dirty by killing others directly, but who allowed and facilitated the actions of others. This was especially true in the Justices’ trial that convicted the Judges of Germany in WWII. The fact that some of the Justices were “hesitant” or were “just following orders” was not considered to be a defense for allowing war crimes to continue. (See http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/alstoetter.htm#Commentary)

In addition to many academic sources on this, these events were also immortalized in the classic 1961 film “Judgment at Nuremberg.”

These German public officials had the power to do something about their complicity, albeit with considerable personal risk to themselves, but chose not to act. The public officials in Olympia are not at anywhere near the same level of risk, and yet many of them are not taking the needed courageous action to refuse cooperation with the national government’s war policies.

The time for the Port and others to take action is not in 10-20 years, when they may issue a late apology for cooperating with these wars—but now when their actions may have some positive consequences.

III. Law Enforcement’s Duty During Peaceful Protest

Since the wars are illegal and the citizens and the local officials have a right and a duty to protest and resist, the “authorities” have an obligation not to beat, harass, or gas the citizens as they fulfill their obligations to stop the war machine from engaging in the continuation of the illegal policies and practices that perpetuate these wars. The protesters and resisters, for many days during the last three years, were involved with peaceful protests and assembly in Olympia (and Tacoma). These protests have been peaceful and nonviolent. Many people have been arrested for being in the streets. Most of those arrested have not been convicted of any crimes. As far as I know, there have been no arrests for any attacks on the police – because there have been none.

The police department of the City of Olympia and the Thurston County Sheriff’s office should facilitate peaceful protest, not exacerbate tensions as the citizenry engage in peaceful actions. Of course, no actions at all would be necessary if the Port and the local authorities were following domestic and international law and NOT allowing use of public facilities for illegal wars. The City of Olympia should not allow itself to be used for this effort – even if they are “paid” for the services of the police.

IV. The Cost of War

The immorality and illegality of the wars is no longer in rational dispute. The wars are also grossly costly and not in the interest of the American people and the local residents of the South Sound. For current information on the dollar costs, see the National Priorities Project, which tracked the total cost of the wars and breaks down the cost for local entities. (See http://www.nationalpriorities.org/) As of this writing, the U.S. cost of the wars is $975.4 billion. The cost to Olympia residents is $152.9 million. This does not include the cost of providing police services that have “protected” the Port from citizens who are exercising their Constitutional rights to protest illegal wars. The citizens have international and domestic obligations to resist complicity in war crimes in their back yards.

V. Actions Needed from Local Government

The City of Olympia and Thurston County should make it clear that they will not subsidize the war efforts by providing police “protection” when no real protection from the public is needed. The Port of Olympia should make it clear that they will not participate in actions that contribute to continuing war crimes, and that they will not accept “blood money” for additional shipments, nor accept “back door payments” from Homeland Security to militarize the Port. This is an opportunity for local government officials to make principled stands and be an example to other entities by saying that they will not cooperate in continuing these wars. This would truly be supporting the local communities and supporting the troops.

To Summarize:

1. The U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are illegal under international and domestic laws.

2. The citizens of the United States and their local officials have not only a right but a duty to resist those actions that continue these illegal wars, including stopping military shipments through the Port of Olympia.

3. Citizens, in the performance of their duties to resist illegal wars, have the right to be free from repression, beatings, chemical attacks, etc. from the authorities, as these citizens are exercising their rights.

4. The local governments should not be expending local resources to facilitate the continuation of these illegal wars.

This is a somewhat lengthy letter, but public testimony at regularly scheduled meetings is usually limited to 2-3 minutes. However, the issues discussed here are complicated and cannot be explained in a few short minutes. In addition to this letter, I am willing to meet with those who receive this to provide more explanation and documentation on the issues.

Furthermore, I would urge the City of Olympia, Thurston County and the Port of Olympia to exercise transparency and accountability regarding use of the Port. For issues with high importance to local residents, such as military shipments, public forums should be held (with sufficient time allotted for each participant) — where citizen input is taken, and most importantly, taken into account when decisions are made about Port activities.

Footnotes:

1. Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank, “The Iraq Connection, Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed,” Washington Post, June 17, 2004. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

2. Among many sources see:

UN Secretary General says war is Illegal, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3661134.stm

Executive Director of the American Center for International Law ("ACIL") http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6917.htm

David Kreiger, “The War on Iraq as Illegal and Illegitimate,” http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2005/03/00_krieger_war-illegal-illegitimate.htm

Summary of Global Policy Forum on International Law Aspects of the Iraq War. http://www.globalpolicy.org/iraq/political-issues-in-iraq/international-law-aspects-of-the-iraq-war-and-occupation.html

“UN Weapons inspector Hans Blix, Iraq War Illegal,” http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0305-01.htm

“West Point Graduates Against the War: Laws and treaties violated by President George W. Bush, Vice-president Richard Cheney, public officials under their authority, and members of the U.S. military under their command.” http://www.westpointgradsagainstthewar.org/laws_and_treaties_violated_by_pr.htm and http://www.westpointgradsagainstthewar.org/

British Chilcot Commission, 2010, Lawyers Expose Illegality of Iraq War, http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/58900,news-comment,news-politics,chilcot-inquiry-lawyers-expose-illegality-of-iraq-war

Downing Street Memos showing that Britain and US Knew the war was illegal before the war started, http://downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html.

3. Among many sources see:

Marjorie Cohn, President, National Lawyers Guild, “Afghanistan: The Other Illegal War,” http://www.alternet.org/world/93473/afghanistan:_the_other_illegal_war/

Also see Marjorie Cohn, “Obama Af-Pak War is Illegal,” http://www.marjoriecohn.com/2009/12/obamas-af-pak-war-is-illegal.html

Francis Boyle, University of Illinois, “No War Against Afghanistan!”
http://www.ratical.com/ratville/CAH/fab112901.html

Francis Boyle, “Is Bush's War Illegal? Let Us Count the Ways”
http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle0917.html

Arnold J. Chien, Associate Researcher, Institute for Health and Social Justice. “Why the War Against Afghanistan is Illegal” http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/issue46/articles/legality_civilian_toll.htm

Gail Davidson, Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada, “International Law: The Illegality of the War on Afghanistan” http://www.natural-person.ca/pdf/Illegal_War_In_Afghanistan.PDF.

Port of Olympia and City of Olympia Meeting

2010-03-20T21:47:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: The "Military Cargo" item has been removed from the agenda.

On Thursday March 25 there is scheduled a meeting between representatives from the Port of Olympia and the City of Olympia. One of the topics of that meeting will likely be the issue of military cargoes through the port and city. The meeting is scheduled to begin at 6 PM at the Phoenix Inn (415 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA) in the Phoenix Room.

The following is what appears on the City of Olympia weekly agenda:

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE OLYMPIA CITY COUNCIL AND
PORT OF OLYMPIA COMMISSION
Thursday, March 25, 2010
6:00 pm
Phoenix Inn
417 Capitol Way N
Phoenix Room

1. East Bay Redevelopment Update (Kari Qvigstad, Port)
2. Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Program Update (Keith Stahley, City)

The official City agenda doesn't include the topic of military shipments. But the Port has also posted an agenda for the meeting on its website, and it does include military cargo. Here is the agenda from the Port of Olympia:

SPECIAL COMMISSION MEETING
MARCH 25, 2010
6:00 PM
Phoenix Inn
415 Capitol Way North
Olympia, Washington
www.portlympia.com

The Commission welcomes comments on the agenda items via the comments link provided.
HYPERLINK "http://www.portolympia.com/commission/agenda" http://www.portolympia.com/commission/agenda

JOINT MEETING WITH OLYMPIA CITY COUNCIL

CALL TO ORDER
COMMISSION CONSIDERATION (Dialogue with the public may be taken at the discretion of the Commission President)

East Bay Redevelopment Project Update – Kari Qvigstad, Port of Olympia

Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master Plan Update - Keith Stahley, City of Olympia

Military Cargo – Ed Galligan, Port of Olympia

ADJOURN

So, there you have it. Will there be a chance for members of the public to comment? Sounds like that will be up to the Commission President to decide.

Military Spying

2010-03-15T14:17:00.000-07:00

http://www.theolympian.com/2009/09/12/968262/army-e-mail-sent-to-police-and.html

Army e-mail sent to police and accused spy
Threat Assessment: Anti-war group was topic

JEREMY PAWLOSKI; The Olympian | • Published September 12, 2009

In November 2007, Fort Lewis e-mailed its threat assessments concerning the activities of an Olympia anti-war group to both the Olympia Police Department and John Towery, a man now accused of spying on the anti-war group.

Towery, a civilian Fort Lewis employee, might have been the one who gathered the information about the anti-war group, known locally as Olympia Port Militarization Resistance (OlyPMR), according to one of its members.

The threat assessments were sent by Fort Lewis to Olympia police in the days before and during OlyPMR’s protests at the Port of Olympia in November 2007.

OlyPMR member Drew Hendricks is one of the activists who helped unmask Towery. He said Towery began attending OlyPMR meetings in spring 2007 under the name John Jacob.

The Olympian was given thousands of pages of e-mails Friday that Towery and the Olympia Police Department received from Fort Lewis. Olympia released the e-mails in response to public-records requests from The Olympian for all of the city’s public records that mention Towery.

The threat assessments sent by Fort Lewis to Olympia police in November 2007 contain specific information about OlyPMR’s activities, including OlyPMR’s intentions and what type of police radio scanner the group used to monitor troop movements in planning their protests.

“That’s highly likely,” Hendricks said when asked whether Towery might have been providing information about OlyPMR in the threat assessments that were sent to Olympia police.

The threat assessments were sent to Olympia Police Cmdr. Tor Bjornstad in e-mails from the head of Fort Lewis Force Protection. Fort Lewis Force Protection is a group of military and civilian employees who support law enforcement and security operations to ensure the safety of Fort Lewis and its soldiers, Fort Lewis spokesman Joseph Piek has said.

Piek said Friday that he can’t comment on whether the information in the threat assessments came from Towery.

“We haven’t seen these e-mails, and we can’t comment or speculate on the source of the information in the e-mails while the investigation is ongoing,” he said.

Piek has said that Fort Lewis is conducting an inquiry into whether Towery spied on OlyPMR.

Fort Lewis spokesman J.C. Matthews shed some light on the ongoing inquiry in an e-mail to The Olympian on Friday.

“Right now, the primary concern continues to be ensuring a comprehensive investigation is completed that determines the facts and makes solid recommendations regarding those findings,” Matthews wrote. “This is a complex issue, and the public has a right to expect our best effort. When the investigation is complete, we will provide as much information about the finding as possible. Our goal is transparency.”

OlyPMR members oppose the Iraq War. In November 2007, they attempted to block the transport of Stryker vehicles and other military equipment used in the war from the Port of Olympia back to Fort Lewis.

The e-mails released by Olympia in response to the records request include messages copied to Towery from the Washington Joint Analytical Center.

The WJAC is a clearinghouse of sorts of anti-terrorism information and sensitive intelligence that is gathered and disseminated to law enforcement agencies across the state. The WJAC receives money from the federal government.

The substance of nearly all of the WJAC’s e-mails to Olympia police officials had been blacked out in the copies provided to The Olympian.

The other category of e-mails released by the city are the threat assessments sent by Fort Lewis Force Protector Thomas Rudd to Army personnel around the time of the November 2007 protests. Towery and Bjornstad both were sent copies.

An e-mail sent Nov. 14 has the subject line, “Force Protection Intelligence Update:” and continues, “As of 900, 14 Nov. protesters continue surveillance of the port and appear to be focused on determining rail movement plans. Protesters are comprised of two main groups; the Olympia Port Militization (PMR) and the self-described anarchists calling themselves the Port Liberations Front (PLF), and various other groups, and individuals who align themselves with these groups or take individual actions based on their beliefs ... .”

The e-mail continues, “If protesters decide to continue efforts to block line hauls or rail movements, tactics will continue to include the use of makeshift barricades, ‘sleeping dragons’ (chains protected by plastic pipes), and more decentralized staging at intersections along viable routes from port to I-5.”

Some of the information in these “intelligence updates” appears to have been widely available in media reports. Other pieces of information do not appear to have been reported by the media and must have been gathered by other means. For example, part of a Nov. 5 e-mail by Rudd reads, “Surveillance of the Port began this morning by local activists and the arrival of the USCG Marine Safety and security team at 0830 was posted to local independent media web pages. ... Believing they would be shot, protesters will not conduct any activity that puts them in a direct confrontation with USCG personnel. This belief should deter them from attempts to enter Port property until the Ship/USCG assets have departed.”

An e-mail sent by Rudd on Nov. 15 states that “Local protesters have been using a radio shack ‘PRO-63’ scanner to monitor law enforcement and other communications.”

In a phone interview Friday, Bjornstad said he had no idea who gathered the intelligence that was distributed in Fort Lewis’ threat assessments. He added, “I had never heard of this Towery guy until this whole thing popped up.” Bjornstad said that when he received Fort Lewis’ e-mails in November 2007, “I just read them and deleted them. Nothing I read in any of those ever changed our approach to anything.”

Bjornstad said he assumed that the person who wrote the intelligence updates was at OlyPMR’s meetings at the Olympia Free School in downtown Olympia. The meetings were open to the public, although Olympian reporters were barred from attending OlyPMR meetings in November after showing up and announcing their intent to listen in and report on the proceedings. Bjornstad said that because the meetings were open to the public, it’s difficult to accuse anyone who attended them of “infiltrating” the group.

Yale Law School faculty member Eugene Fidell has said in a previous interview with The Olympian that a military employee infiltrating OlyPMR and spying on members could violate the Posse Comitatus Act, a federal law that prohibits the use of the Army for conventional law enforcement activities against civilians.

On Friday, Piek discussed the intense and detailed planning that goes into any movement of military personnel and equipment. A movement to or from Fort Lewis to a foreign country is considered “one long military operation,” he said. He added, “We have to take a look at what are the obstacles, what is the situation as we plan an operation. … We have an enormous responsibility to the community that we do movements safely.”

Piek declined to discuss whether threat assessments are part of that preparation, but he added, “we don’t just line up the vehicles and head out.”

Jeremy Pawloski: 360-754-5465

jpawloski@theolympian.com
http://www.theolympian.com/2009/09/12/968262/army-e-mail-sent-to-police-and.html

To Prevent A Greater Harm

2010-02-04T12:11:00.000-08:00

To Prevent a Greater Harm

Necessity Defense to be Argued by Local Anti-War Actvists

Article By – State vs Herrera-Imani Defense Team

On January 26^th Pierce County District Court Judge, Margaret Vail Ross, ruled in favor of Civil Rights Attorney Larry Hildes to present a Necessity defense in the joined cases of anti-war activists Brianna Emma Herrera, of Seattle, and Patricia Imani, of Olympia. Jury trial is set for April 21^st and 22^nd in Pierce County District Court, Tacoma, WA. (The trial was rescheduled soon into the first attempt at trial, in January, when a potential conflict with a juror was presented to the court. Because an alternate juror was not available, Judge Ross made the appropriate decision to call a mistrial and reschedule.)

The January 26^th ruling is just the third time in Washington State history that the defense has been allowed by the courts, though many within the anti-nuclear and anti-war movements have sought the defense in civil disobedience cases.

The rationale behind the necessity defense is that in order to prevent a greater harm a technical breach of law (in this case, disorderly conduct) is more advantageous to society than the consequence of strict adherence to the law (in this case, war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity).

Herrera and Imani were arrested in August 2008 while participating in non-violent civil resistance at separate planned actions near the gates of Fort Lewis, WA. Direct actions through human blockades were taken to delay the refitting and redeployment of combat vehicles used in US occupation of Iraq. The combat vehicles, recently redeployed to Iraq, were with the 4^th-2^nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team based at Fort Lewis.

Direct actions to resist the illegal aggressive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have taken place since May of 2006 in association with Port Militarization Resistance efforts. As written by Marco Rosairre Rossi in a June 2006 Works in Progress article, A Call for Direct Action Against the War, “Their actions, though technically violations of minor local laws… are fully protected under international law. The Nuremberg Trials clearly laid down the principle that citizens not only have a right, but a duty, to disobey and resist the laws of regimes that ignore international law. The United States government, without any doubt, is such a regime…The actions of the activists who were arrested may not be congruent with local laws, but they are in full compliance with international laws, and in so far as those laws have been ratified by the United States government, they are also in compliance with the US Constitution. If anything, these activists are law-abiding global citizens who are trying to hold accountable the largest organized crime syndicate in the world: the United States government.”

Key defense witnesses for the Herrera-Imani trial will include Daniel Ellsberg, the noted US military analyst employed by the RAND Corporation who was responsible for release of the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times in 1971. The act of releasing the classified documents was technically illegal, but the act of civil resistance turned public sentiment against the Vietnam war, ultimately encouraging an end to the war. Also testifying for the defense will be Seth Manzel, a local Iraq War Veteran. Manzel is founder of the non-profit organization GI Voice and member of Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW).

The State vs Herrera-Imani Defense team is continuing to seek donations in order to cover the basic costs of the trial. If you can help, donations can be made payable to “P.O. LEGAL DEFENSE FUND” and mailed to PO BOX 295, Olympia, WA 98507.

War Resisters' Day in Court

2010-02-03T01:51:00.000-08:00

more photos
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Tacoma, Washington

The short story is that Judge Ross ruled in favor of the protesters' motion to defend themselves based on the necessity of their actions.

Then, later on, when one of the jurors (a Pierce County Corrections Officer) was seen waving to a witness for the state (Lakewood Police Officer Martin Knott,) a mistrial was declared.

The trial is scheduled to start over (with selection of a new jury) in April. The defendants' claim to necessity has been established and that part of the case is set to remain.