thomasfbarton@earthlink.net Print it out: color best. Pass it on.

[Thanks to David Honish, Veterans For Peace, for sending in.]

"Stop The Spying Now"
"I, An Active Duty Member Of The Armed Forces, Wish To Voice My Support Of The Constitutional Right From Unreasonable And Unlawful Search"

To: GI Special
Sent: February 10, 2006
Subject: An Active Duty Member Writes The Prez

[Credit: The Southern ((( i ))) Hampton Roads Independent Media Coalition via Tom Palumbo]

************************************************

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Dear Mr. President:

I, an active duty member of the armed forces, wish to voice my support of the Constitutional right from unreasonable and unlawful search. 

When I joined the military, I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. 

You also have taken a similar oath with the same promise, twice in your terms as president. 

Both oaths are printed above, as a reminder to members of the military, and to yourself, of the gravity of that oath.

The recent domestic spying scandals, in which the National Security Agency, The Federal Bureau of Investigation, and our military leaders in the Pentagon monitored, infiltrated, tracked and investigated fellow U.S. citizens for exercising their Constitutional rights and participating in the American political dialog, worries me. 

It worries me because it shows that the very freedoms which I volunteered to defend are being shouldered aside to protect our country at any cost from terrorism. 

It must be said that this is one of the stated goals of terrorism; to drive a nation-state to turn against it’s own citizens by creating a state of emergency, to let fear destroy freedom.  This creates distrust of the government, a problem that is now generations old in this country.

You often state that terrorism cannot be allowed to win, yet when we marginalize our own freedoms due to fear of attack, we have let the terrorists win. This is not a statement from the fringe; members of the military are trained to fight the terrorists worldwide. 

We know more about their goals and techniques than most Americans, and we know that when we spy upon each other, when we attack each other politically and refuse to allow any dissent, they laugh at us. They know they are winning, and their goals will be attained.

The groups that have been spied upon are not threats to the security of the United States. 

They are quite obviously not connected to violent international terrorism. 

Some of their opinions are strong, and far from the political mainstream, but they are joining in the centuries-old political discussion that makes the gears of democracy turn in the United States. 

If they disagree with you, it’s not because they don’t love America. They have a different vision in mind of the way things should be, and they want to be heard and respected, their ideas considered, not marginalized and made criminal. 

Stop the spying now; there is nothing we have to fear from fellow Americans.

This is not a mutiny, and neither I nor anyone in the military have any intention of disobeying orders, stopping work or otherwise breaking that same oath that I am citing in defense of the Constitution. 

I only wish to voice my concern with the direction our country has taken, and the eroding of freedom that has resulted from our fears of terrorism. 

We can fight and win while maintaining the rights all Americans had before September 11. 

Many American warriors have fallen throughout our history to defend our Constitution, and to defend freedom around the world. Don’t let their sacrifice lose it’s meaning now.

//signed//
OS2(SW) David Rogers Jr.
southernidave@yahoo.com

Do you have a friend or relative in the service? Forward this E-MAIL along, or send us the address if you wish and we’ll send it regularly. Whether in Iraq or stuck on a base in the USA, this is extra important for your service friend, too often cut off from access to encouraging news of growing resistance to the war, at home and inside the armed services. Send requests to address up top.

IRAQ WAR REPORTS

Roadside Bomb Hit Aleksandr Anton Morosky’s Humvee

02/16/06 theday:

Staff Sgt. Aleksandr Anton Morosky, who will turn 26 on March 5, suffered a compound fracture to his left arm and shrapnel wounds in his back…his Humvee struck a roadside bomb. Two others in the vehicle suffered less-serious injuries

Anatomy Of An Ambush

2.17.06 By Steve Mraz, Stars and Stripes [Excerpt]

Redhead and Marine Sgt. Chris Filley, 22, survived a Feb. 10 roadside bomb attack on their convoy near Hit, Iraq. The Marines told their story while recovering from their wounds at Landstuhl.

Around 8:30 a.m., Filley was in the lead vehicle of a convoy conducting an IED sweep on Main Supply Route Bronze. He had just finished transporting snipers back to Forward Operating Base Train Station.

A roadside bomb exploded 20 meters in front of Filley’s up-armored Humvee. Filley radioed the rest of the convoy and told them to drive 100 meters past the explosion.

Once away from the explosion, Filley got out of his vehicle and called for the Navy corpsman to make sure everybody was OK from the bomb explosion.

"That’s when the second blast went off," he said. "I was about 15 meters away from the second blast."

Redhead, who was driving the vehicle behind Filley, was providing security outside of his Humvee when the second roadside bomb detonated.

Shrapnel from the blast struck an interpreter in the shoulder and Filley in the left forearm. A shard from the bomb put two holes, each an inch long, an inch wide and half an inch deep, in Redhead’s left foot.

"All the sudden, boom," Redhead said. "I see smoke, dust, rocks. My ears were ringing hard. I was like 10 to 20 feet away from the blast."

Rebel Attacks Up 30 Percent Over Past Few Weeks

February 17, 2006 Pak Tribune

The US military has warned that rebel attacks across Iraq have increased 30 percent over the past few weeks.

US Major-General Rick Lynch said "We have seen over the last several weeks about a 15 percent increase in civilian casualties, and we’ve seen about a 30 percent increase in attacks against security forces," he told reporters.

"30 Roadside Bombings Are Carried Out Per Day"
Occupation Troops Reduced To Foot Patrols

February 16, 2006 Sudha Ramachandran, Asia Times Online [Excerpt]

While suicide bombings grab media attention for their spectacular impact, it is roadside bombings that are far more numerous in Iraq, and their frequency has grown dramatically over the past two years.

There were about 10,600 roadside bombings in 2005, nearly twice the number that occurred in 2004. This means that on an average, 30 roadside bombings are carried out per day across Iraq.

Media reports citing US government sources say that while the number of IED attacks has grown over the past two years, US countermeasures seem to be working in reducing the number of fatalities.

Statistics give a different story, however.

The number of fatalities from IEDs rose steadily all of last year, according to the Iraq index compiled by the Washington-based Brookings Institution.  While the number of IED fatalities per month was in single digits in 2003, it surged in 2004 and grew significantly throughout 2005, averaging more than 30 deaths a month last year.

In 2003, IEDs were little more than artillery shells that, when exploded, caused an extensive blast and scattered shrapnel indiscriminately.  But these were less effective in piercing armored targets.  Then the insurgents started packing the IEDs with more explosives, even nails, ball bearings, glass and gravel – eventually using anti-tank missiles instead of artillery shells.

Since early 2005, insurgents have been using a "shaped charge", an IED adapted to concentrate the force of the blast, giving it a better chance of piercing armored vehicles.

For US troops in Iraq, the most unsafe place seems to be inside their vehicles.

Instead of using vehicles that could set off a pressure-detonated IED, the US forces are opting for foot patrols.  The insurgents have responded to that by laying IEDs near likely foot paths.

The battle of the roadside bombs in Iraq is not just about detonating or defusing IEDs. It is about innovation and counter-innovation, ingenuity and guile.  And the insurgents seem always a step ahead.

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO COMPREHENSIBLE REASON TO BE IN THIS EXTREMELY HIGH RISK LOCATION AT THIS TIME, EXCEPT THAT A CROOKED POLITICIAN WHO LIVES IN THE WHITE HOUSE WANTS YOU THERE, SO HE WILL LOOK GOOD.
That is not a good enough reason.

U.S. Army Sgt. Joseph Neary, left, of Altoona, Pennsylvania, inspects a possible roadside bomb while a colleague looks on, Feb. 2, 2006, in Khaldiyah.  (AP Photo/Antonio Castaneda)

AFGHANISTAN WAR REPORTS

Resistance Attack In Force Kills Occupation Cop, Four Wounded

16 February BBC

Suspected Taleban militants have killed one policeman and wounded four others in an attack in southern Afghanistan, officials say.

Nimroz governor Ghulam Dastagir Azad told Reuters news agency that some 60 Taleban militants were involved in Wednesday’s attack on a police post.

TROOP NEWS

THIS IS HOW BUSH BRINGS THE TROOPS HOME:
BRING THEM ALL HOME NOW

Burial for Filipino-American U.S. army chief warrant officer Ruel Garcia, at his hometown in Obando cemetery, Bulacan province, north of Manila February 7, 2006.  Garcia, 34, a dedicated pilot, died along with his co-pilot in a crash after their Apache helicopter gunship was shot down by a surface-to-air missile on the morning of January 16 in Taji, Iraq.  REUTERS/Romeo Ranoco

Reservists Who Refuse Bush’s Imperial Wars Go Free

February 17, 2006 Detroit Free Press

Pentagon officials have refrained from arresting and imprisoning reservists who refuse to report for duty in Iraq out of evoking Vietnam memories.  DoD is considering general discharges for the less than 100 reservists who haven’t reported.

Latino Activists Will Lead A 241 Mile March Against Iraq War

Main Contacts:

Primara: Pablo Paredes (619) 857-4947
pablopare@gmail.com

Victor Paredes (917) 864-9179
vicparedes@msn.com

On March 12, 2006 Fernando Suarez del Solar, Pablo Paredes, Camilo Mejia and Aidan Delgado will lead a coalition of the willing across a 241 mile quest for peace that aims at raising Latino voice of opposition to the War in Iraq. 

The March will run from Tijuana, Mexico all the way to The Mission district of San Francisco making strategic, symbolic and ceremonial stops along the way. The 241 mile march is inspired by Gandhi’s 1930 Salt March protesting British imperialism and will serve as a loud cry for an end to the bloodshed in Iraq. 

Latinos represent nearly 15% of the US population, 11% of the US military and an estimated 20% of the fallen service members in Iraq.  The Latino population is a growing force in the US and their voice must be an active part of the more than 60% of US citizens that oppose the war in Iraq. 

That’s why on March 12th, 4 Latinos of different ages, nationalities and hometowns will come together to lead the Latino community in a loud and definitive call for an end to the war in Iraq.  Because of their unique experiences with this war; Fernando, Pablo, Camilo and Aidan are dedicated to working to end the bloodshed in Iraq.   

Fernando Suarez del Solar is the father of one of the first Latinos to die in Iraq: Jesus Suarez del Solar. 

Fernando discovered that Jesus was the victim of an illegal US cluster bomb through a well know recent victim of the war, (co-anchor of ABC’s World News Tonight) Bob Woodruff. 

Pablo Paredes is a Navy war resister who refused boarding an Iraq bound ship on Dec. 6th 2004. He was court martialed, sentenced and eventually discharged. 

Camilo Mejia served one tour in Iraq and then became a National Guard war resister. He was jailed for nine months for his opposition to the war. 

Aidan Delgado is a Conscientious Objector of the Iraq war. He served at Abu Gharib and now tours the country with slide shows of the prison abuses.

These 4 men will lead a 241 mile march that will begin at the birth place of Jesus Suarez del Solar, Tijuana, Mexico, as a symbolic call for peace beyond borders. 

The march route is designed to follow Jesus’ footsteps whiling stopping at places with symbolic or historical significance. After departing from Tijuana, the march will head towards Escondido, CA where Jesus was first recruited by the US military and where his body currently rests. 

The next major stop will be at the Marine Corps depot from where Jesus and many others have been deployed to Iraq: Camp Pendleton.  The intention is to present a symbolic redeployment to peace; therefore the marching caravan will be led from Camp Pendleton to La Paz, CA. La Paz means "peace" in English and is the resting place of a revered Latino leader, Cesar Chavez.

This group of dedicated Latinos will end the march on March 26 at the Mission District of San Francisco with a blood drive to benefit those in need in Iraq (civilian and Military) and a memorial service for Jesus. The blood drive will serve to demonstrate that despite their opposition to the war, they do support our troops and wish for them to come home now and end the bloodshed.

Gandhi’s 241 mile Salt March is one of the most impactful non-violent acts of protest and civil disobedience in pursuit of social justice in history. This legacy has been vibrant in all Latino Social Justice movements such as those led by Cesar Chavez. Fernando, Pablo, Camilo and Aidan wish to rekindle this tradition and put Gandhi’s spirit into practice in search for peace. 

All four leaders of this march are available for interviews and all press is invited to cover this historic march for peace. 

Veteran Threatened By Stupid Assholes From Homeland Security For Antiwar Stickers On His Car

" Bottom line: My rights are very dear to me. I served my country to defend them," he says. "And one of the things I was defending was free speech. It’s the First Amendment for a reason, not the last, not the middle. The first."

FEBRUARY 15, 2006 BY NICHOLAS COLLIAS, Boise Weekly

Dwight Scarbrough’s idea of political dissent is one that rubs some people the wrong way. He likes to blame his compulsion for peaceful troublemaking on his birthday: October 2, the same as Ghandi. However, a few of Scarbrough’s techniques are all his own; especially when it comes to his truck.

For instance, when the Iraq War was looking imminent, not long after September 11, Dwight attached a garbage bag to the back of his truck bed. He splattered the bag and the truck with ketchup and added a sign reading, "This veteran knows that our children are worth more than a $6.95 body bag." When he drove down the freeway, the bag would inflate and appear occupied.

"That one was a little in-your-face and on-the-edge," Scarbrough recalls. "It got a lot of response."

Scarbrough wasn’t always so anti-military. During the waning years of the Cold War, he even served five years on a nuclear submarine for the U.S. Navy.

But now, instead of trying to stop the spread of "red" states like China and the USSR, Dwight lives in a red state: Idaho.

He’s the founder and head of Boise’s local branch of Veterans for Peace, he leads seminars exposing military recruitment practices in schools, and he and his truck are fixtures at nearly every Democratic, antiwar or pro-peace event in town.

While no longer smeared with ketchup, his ride is still hard to ignore.

On the back, he tapes weekly updates of the number of U.S. soldiers killed and wounded in Iraq. Beneath that, on a large, white (and also taped-on) placard: "Support our returning troops and their families when they need help: Give them this number: GI RIGHTS HOTLINE: 1-800-394-9544."

On both doors, in bold capital letters: "DEATH IN IRAQ IS NOT A CAREER OPPORTUNITY FOR YOUNG AMERICANS." Taking up nearly half of the back window: "Veterans for Peace Chapter 117, Idaho."

On the driver’s side wheel well, also in all caps: "PERHAPS GOD BLESSES EVERY NATION, NOT JUST THE USA." And interspersed between them all, he places a variety of purchased bumper stickers and magnetic ribbons reading, among other sentiments, "Support our Troops: Bring them Home Now," "Support Diversity" and "Honor Vets, Wage Peace."

Scarbrough gets his share of negative attention, including plenty of people "flying the bald eagle," as he likes to call it, but he savors such attention. He likes to call his truck a "sociological experiment on wheels," and whether you like the message of that experiment or not, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that Scarbrough is the type of extreme voice that the First Amendment, that one about free speech, is intended to protect.

Or at least it seemed that way until last Tuesday.

On February 7, Scarbrough went to his job like any other day. He is a scientist with a federal agency in Boise, one that is part of the executive branch, ironically, and he parked in his usual spot, just outside of the federal Natural Resource Center on Vinnell Way in Boise, kitty corner to a Wal-Mart, a Lowe’s Home Improvement Center and a 21-screen Edwards cineplex.

Made up of two large, square brick buildings, the complex houses a variety of federal offices including the Social Security Administration, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, among others. But despite the fact that most of the employees in the complex can, at least officially, consider George W. Bush their boss, Scarbrough has taken remarkably little grief for his strident anti-Bush views and props. Even those who don’t agree with his message usually tolerate it.

Once, last year, some conservative-minded ladies objected about the "BUSHIT" sticker in Scarbrough’s passenger-side window. 

Scarbrough and his supervisor reviewed all the federal rules concerning bumper stickers on employee vehicles, and discovered that nothing he had displayed could be considered illegal. But for once, Scarbrough simply removed the sticker. Indeed, his current lineup is quite sparse by his standards, he says.

But on this day, apparently it was still too much.

Around 2:15 p.m., Scarbrough says, he answered his office phone and found himself talking to a man who identified himself as Officer R. of the Department of Homeland Security. (I’m withholding the officer’s name; you know, what with Plamegate and all.)

Scarbrough was told that he was in violation of the Code of Federal Regulations, the set of rules that govern all executive departments and agencies, and that he was in danger of being cited unless he came out to the parking lot or let the officer come up to his office.

Scarbrough chose the first option, and took along a co-worker, also a veteran, and, being an experienced peace activist, a tape recorder. Downstairs, they found two armed officers with "Homeland Security" insignia patches on their shoulders, waiting for them in large white SUVs. Scarbrough informed the officers that he would record their conversation, and what follows is the transcript of that recording.

Officer: Step back here please.

Dwight Scarbrough: Let’s have a seat.

O: I’d like to talk to you.

DS: Let’s have a seat.

O: Sir, come over here please.

DS: I don’t want to come over there. I want to sit down.

O: Let me tell you what’s going on here. OK, there’s a violation of the code of federal regulations.

DS: For what?

O: The CFR. 41, CFR, 102, 74, 415. Posting or affixing signs, pamphlets, handbills or flyers on federal property. Do you understand that?

DS: I’m not doing anything on federal property.

O: Yes, sir, you’ve got signs posted on your vehicle. I’m informing you that you’re in violation.

DS: That’s not illegal. That’s not illegal.

O: You’re posting …

DS: I … All right.

O: Would you like to listen to me before … sir…

DS: [To his co-worker] Would you go get [their supervisor]?

O: I need you to listen when I’m talking, sir.

DS: [To co-worker]. Would you go get [him] please? [To officer] I’m listening.

O: Okay.

DS: You’re at my place of work, first of all. And you’re harassing me.

O: Sir, you’re in violation of the code of federal regulations.

DS: I’m not in violation.

O: You’re posting signs on this property.

DS: I am not posting signs. That’s on a private vehicle.

O: Sir, I’m here to tell you now that you have to remove those signs.

DS: Was the law just changed?

O: No, there was no law just changed.

DS: Then it’s not a violation.

O: I just told you what the law is, sir.

DS: It is not a violation. I’ve read the statutes already.

O: If you do not comply with my order to remove the signs from the property, I will cite you for it, OK? Do you understand that?

DS: You know what? This is harassment.

O: No, sir, it’s not.

DS: Yes, it is.

O: No, it’s not.

DS: Say it again, please. (Holds up microphone.) This is harassment.

O: Do you understand what I’ve told you?

DS: I understand what you’ve told me, but I’ve also read the statute that as a federal employee—

O: I’ve just given you an order and told you to remove those signs from the property.

DS: I will move my vehicle off the property.

O: That will be fine. That will comply with it, and we don’t have to …

DS: You know this is total B.S., though. Because, will you get [his supervisor], please?—I’ve already had this conversation once, and we’ve already looked up all the statues and laws covering personal vehicles with stick … with anything on them on government property. And it is not illegal.

O: It’s in 41 CFR. Look that up.

D: "Why don’t you look it up?" I have.

O: 41 CF4 102—

D: What is the violation?

O: Posting of signs on—

D: Which one?

O: I just told you the violation.

D: Those are not signs.

O: Twice now I’ve told you.

D: Those are not signs.

O: Yes, sir, they are. What are they then?

D: So any vehicle that comes on with, like, a police sign, or with delivery or FedEx or something, that’s not a sign?

O: All signs are prohibited—

D: You know you’re harassing me. You know you’re harassing me.

O: No, sir, I’m not.

D: You know the Department of Homeland Security is giving me harassment—

O: Sir—

D: —because I’m a person who happens to express my viewpoints on my vehicle.

O: I need you to comply with my order and remove the signs…

D: Who has filed a complaint?

O: …you said you’d do that, that’s fine …

D: Who has filed a complaint? Who has filed a complaint?

O: No one has filed a complaint, sir.

D: Well, then what’s the complaint?

O: It’s law enforcement on federal property.

D: You know this is … I would like my supervisor down here, please.

O: This doesn’t concern him at all.

D: Yes, it does, because I’ve already had this discussion with him, and I’ve already been asked to change the signs, and I did. And I looked up all the statutes.

O: (Muffled)

D: Do you have a piece of paper with the number then, please?

O: I told you the number.

D: I would like to write it down, then.

O: I will give you a piece of paper …

D: Just write it down. That’s all I’m asking.

O: But I need you to comply with my instructions to remove the—

D: You’re harassing me, in other words.

O: Sir, this is not harassment.

D: It’s crap, and you know it.

O: No, sir, it is not.

D: It is. Okay, go ahead.

O: 41, C-F-R…

D: 41, C-F-R…

O: 102 …

D: 102 …

O: 74 …

D: 74 …

O: Subpart C …

D: Subpart C …

O: Paragraph 415.

D: Paragraph 415.

O: And they are posted at the entrances to federal facilities, as they are here, and it is referenced.

D: And this defines exactly what "signs" are, right?

O: It says "signs," sir.

D: Yeah. You’re harassing me. I’ll be back in a minute. I don’t have my keys with me.

O: Sir—

D: I don’t have my car keys with me.

O: Okay.

D: I had no clue what you were here to bother me about … (walks toward door)… this is your buddy, your boss and my boss harassing people for expressing political viewpoints. And you know it. There’s nothing illegal about it. (Door beeps).

Scarbrough moved his car to the parking lot in front of a nearby Goodwill store, a private property where it could legally be towed if the managers objected to his decorations. It wasn’t towed, but according to his co-worker, Scarbrough was still "very distraught"—both by the accusations and by the way the officers maneuvered themselves between Scarbrough and his coworker, isolating them in a classic police crowd-control technique.

"I wasn’t arrested, but I could have been," Scarbrough recalls. "I was still violated and harassed." He took the rest of the week off after the incident. But he didn’t just sit and mope. He looked up the rule that the Homeland Security officers referenced, and found that it read:

"All persons entering in or on Federal property are prohibited from: …

(b) Posting or affixing materials, such as pamphlets, handbills, or flyers, on bulletin boards or elsewhere on GSA-controlled property…"

However, after his experience with the "Bushit" sticker last year, he was also quick to reference the Hatch Act, the rules that lay out exactly what political activities federal employees are allowed to participate in.

According to the Hatch Act, political bumper stickers are allowed on cars parked on federal property, with no stated limitation on either size or number of stickers. So by the current rules, Scarbrough’s car would seem to be legit, unless the "elsewhere" of the pamphlet rule is meant to extend to personal property as well as government property.

If that’s the case, both Scarbrough and his coworker said, "That’s news to me." It would also be news to the dozens of people parked in the Natural Resource Complex with bumper stickers reading, among other sentiments, "My Dad is a Marine," "Create Peace," "POW/ MIA," and others of both the pro-choice and pro-life variety.

But after going through the incident, both Scarbrough and his coworker are insistent: it’s not the location or size that mattered in this case. It’s the message.

They are quick to relate the event to Cindy Sheehan being arrested at President Bush’s State of the Union address just a week earlier, where she was wearing a T-shirt reading: "2245 Dead. How many more?" Sheehan’s charges were dropped, and Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer apologized to her in a statement, saying "The policies and procedures were too vague."

Scarbrough’s co-worker doesn’t see any vagueness in the incidents. "It’s starting to look like this is something like a directive from the Department of Homeland Security to suppress opposition to the war," he says. He calls the officers "image control," but Scarbrough’s take is even more forceful:

"This is a fascist state. At least, it’s the beginning of a fascist state."

If you’re unfamiliar with the Boise office of the Federal Department of Homeland Security, you’re not alone. There’s not a listing for it in the most recent federal government listings in the local phonebook. 

The representative from Idaho State Bureau of Homeland Security, located at the Gowen Field Air National Guard Base behind the Boise Airport, hadn’t even heard there was an office when I contacted him. Neither had the receptionist at the local U.S. Marshal’s office, though she was able to track down a number for the local office of the Federal Protective Service, the section of DHS in charge of protecting federally owned and leased facilities, after putting me on hold for a few minutes (It’s (208) 334-9374, in case you’re curious. Your taxes fund it, after all.).

I was only able to confirm the location of the office after asking the security officer at the Natural Resource Complex, whose job (ostensibly, at least) it is to enforce the rules concerning pamphlets, dogs and other controlled substances on federal property.

He would not comment about the incident, saying, "If this is about what I think it’s about, I’m not allowed to say nothing." He referred me to "FPS, Federal Courthouse, Department of Homeland Security," to find someone who would be able to comment. When I asked who I should say referred me, he covered his nameplate with his hand.

The "office," once I found it, wasn’t much of an office at all, from a service perspective. The door was locked and there was neither a receptionist nor a desk at the front window. When I rang the doorbell, a woman emerged from a nearby cubicle and spoke to me through a tennis-ball-sized hole in the window. She would not confirm the name or identity of the officers, nor their badge numbers (Scarbrough, of course, had written them all down). I slipped a business card through the hole, and by press time, no one had called me back.

However, when I tried the number provided by the U.S. Marshals, Terry Martin at the Federal Protection Service was able to confirm that the officers identified by Scarbrough did, in fact, work for Homeland Security. 

He then referred me to the Department of Homeland Security’s media spokesman in Texas, who had not responded by press time to my request for information about the incident, or about any change in federal law concerning stickers on vehicles in federal parking lots.

In the meantime, Scarbrough has gone back to work and says he plans to continue parking in the same spot.

But now he has an ally. After the incident, he contacted the local office of the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU helped hook him up to a local lawyer who will represent Scarbrough, pro bono, if he is cited.

Several other lawyers have already made similar offers, Scarbrough says.

But that doesn’t make him feel any better about the incident or the message it sends, not only to dissenters like him, but to all federal employees and anyone who thinks their opinions, or their stickers, are only of concern to themselves.

"Bottom line: My rights are very dear to me. I served my country to defend them," he says. "And one of the things I was defending was free speech. It’s the First Amendment for a reason, not the last, not the middle. The first."

What do you think? Comments from service men and women, and veterans, are especially welcome. Send to thomasfbarton@earthlink.net. Name, I.D., withheld on request. Replies confidential.

IRAQ RESISTANCE ROUNDUP

ASSORTED RESISTANCE ACTION

Burning oil pipeline near Taji Feb. 17, 2006. Insurgents blew up the main pipeline feeding crude oil from the northern oil fields of Kirkuk to a refinery in the southern Baghdad suburb of Dora and stopping the flow of oil. (AP Photo/Ahmed Al-Dulimi)

Feb. 17 (Xinhuanet) & By SAMEER N. YACOUB, AP & Reuters

Saboteurs blew up a main oil pipeline in northern Baghdad on Friday, causing a huge fire, a police said.

"A huge fire flared around 9:30 a.m. (0630 GMT) after saboteurs blew up a bomb under the oil pipeline that feeds the al-Doura oil refinery in southern Baghdad with crude from Iraq’s northern Kirkuk oil fields," Captain Ahmed Abdullah, from Baghdad police, told Xinhua. 

It was unclear how long it would take to repair the pipeline, which provides oil for use in the generation of electricity in Baghdad.

Firefighters and Iraq security forces reached the area, where black and thick smoke could be seen pouring into the sky, he said.  

A roadside bomb went off Friday morning near a police patrol in Baghdad’s northern district of Sebea Ibkar, wounding two policemen, Abdullah said.

A policeman was killed and two were wounded when a roadside bomb exploded near their car in Al-Yousifiya, 15 km (9 miles) south of Baghdad, police said.

IF YOU DON’T LIKE THE RESISTANCE
END THE OCCUPATION

OCCUPATION REPORT

Good News For The Iraqi Resistance!!
U.S. Occupation Commands’ Stupid Tactics Recruit Even More Fighters To Kill U.S. Troops

An Iraqi citizen forced to sit in the dirt with her children as foreign troops from the U.S. Army search through her home near Tikrit February 17, 2006. Iraqi citizens are removed from their homes at gunpoint and not allowed to watch the search take place, or observe whether their belongings are taken. [Photo: REUTERS/Bob Strong]

[Fair is fair. Let’s bring 150,000 Iraqis over here to the USA. They can kill people at checkpoints, bust into their houses with force and violence, overthrow the government, put a new one in office they like better and call it "sovereign," and "detain" anybody who doesn’t like it in some prison without any charges being filed against them, or any trial.]

[Those Iraqis are sure a bunch of backward primitives. They actually resent this help, have the absurd notion that it’s bad their country is occupied by a foreign military dictatorship, and consider it their patriotic duty to fight and kill the soldiers sent to grab their country. What a bunch of silly people. How fortunate they are to live under a military dictatorship run by George Bush. Why, how could anybody not love that? You’d want that in your home town, right?]

OCCUPATION ISN’T LIBERATION
BRING ALL THE TROOPS HOME NOW!

So Much For That "Sovereignty" Bullshit:
"Few Iraqis Believe Their Government Has The Power To Force The United States To Free Prisoners"

"It seems that the occupier still doesn’t understand the nature of the Iraqi people," he said. "The Iraqi people cannot be insulted, and this will create massive hostility against the occupier."

17 February 2006 Agence France-Presse & 16 February 2006, By Michael Georgy, Reuters

Iraqis have expressed outrage after new exposure of prisoner abuse at Baghdad’s notorious Abu Ghraib prison, warning the images could further increase already intense anti-Western tensions.

"I felt disgusted when I saw those pictures and I felt at the same time how weak our government is that it can’t help its own people," said Sadun Mohammed, sitting in his shop reading an article in the newspaper.

Fadel al-Sharaa, a representative of firebrand Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr’s political movement, disagreed and expected the photographs to inflame popular sentiment.

"It seems that the occupier still doesn’t understand the nature of the Iraqi people," he said. "The Iraqi people cannot be insulted, and this will create massive hostility against the occupier."

Outside the ministry of justice in central Baghdad, civil servant Jenan Abed Mohammed still seemed angry over the affair.

"This is a massive insult for all Iraqis and Muslims," she said. "The occupier doesn’t understand the true meaning of freedom, which is what they claim they came to Iraq for."

For traffic policeman Raad Saadi at a busy intersection in Baghdad, the images as well as the video broadcast over the weekend of British forces beating up Iraqis, were all indications of the arrogance of the foreign forces.

"If a US or British soldier drives down this street now, he can stop even the convoy of a minister and the minister himself can’t say a thing," he said. "They don’t respect the system or order and they don’t respect the citizen in the street," he said.

Iraq’s Human Rights Minister Zuhair al-Chalabi called on US-led troops to release Iraqi detainees on Thursday after the new footage emerged of abuse at Abu Ghraib, which along with other detention centers holds 14,000 prisoners.

"We are very worried about the Iraqi detainees in Abu Ghraib. The multinational forces and the British forces should hand them over to the (Iraqi) government," Chalabi told Reuters in an interview.

"The Iraqi government should move immediately to have the prisons and the prisoners delivered to the ministry of justice."

Few Iraqis believe their government has the power to force the United States to free prisoners but the tough comments are an indication of the erosion of US credibility in the country.

"These pictures are an insult to us and our government. Why are the Americans and the British still controlling our prisons?" asked Mohammad Jassim, 17, a Shi’ite student.

"Now some people will claim that life was better under Saddam. Both performed crimes against humanity but at least we had security back then," said Abu Anmar, 35, a Sunni petrol station owner, referring to the daily carnage in Iraq.

OCCUPATION PALESTINE

Israelis Shoot Another Unarmed Palestinian

[Thanks to J, who sent this in. She writes: Hitler wanted a pure race and killed the disabled.  It’s always struck me as odd; the number of disabled Palestinians who manage to get killed by accident.  For example a well known deaf man who was shot, months ago, when an order was shouted at his back, and he didn’t respond.

[Following the murder of the two children; one woman, near her goats, and two mentally handicapped males (15 and 25) have been shot, two fatally. Why are Palestinians terrorists if an Israeli is killed but the IDF can kill unarmed Palestinians legally?]

16 February 2006 By Laila El-Haddad in Gaza, Aljazeera

Israeli occupation forces have shot an unarmed, mentally impaired Palestinian man at close range near the Gaza border fence, Palestinian and Israeli sources say.

Mofeed Abu Imghaseet, 25, from Khan Yunis, was seriously injured late on Wednesday night after being shot by Israeli troops near the border fence in the northern Gaza "no-go" zone.

Palestinian medical sources said Abu Imghaseet had wandered off towards the border, unaware of his location, when he was shot.

A spokesperson for the Israeli army said Israeli troops shot at Abu Imghaseet after noticing "a figure which was acting suspiciously" approaching the northern Gaza Strip border fence.

"The figure was identified after having crossed the first barbwire fence and was at the time only several metres from the fence which protects the civilian residents of the nearby Israeli communities.  The force fired at the figure’s lower body and identified hitting him," army spokesman Eido Minkovsky told Aljazeera.net.

Minkovsky said the man was unarmed.

Asked why the mentally disabled man was shot at close range even after he was identified as unarmed, Minkovsky said "following army protocol, if the character wont’ stop after two warning shots, we are obligated to shoot at a lower body part".

Also on Wednesday, in the West Bank, Israeli soldiers shot and killed Mujahid Samadi, a mentally disabled 15-year old Pal