Port of Portland Terminal 6, plus 28 other West Coast ports, shuts down in protest of Iraq War
On the 5th anniversary of President Bush's absurd "Mission Accomplished" photo-op, dockworkers at 29 ports on the West Coast shut down in protest. The protest included the Port of Portland's major terminal, Terminal 6, and the Port of Vancouver.
From the Portland Business Journal:
The Port of Vancouver shut down all of its terminals Thursday and the Port of Portland closed its key Terminal 6 as longshore workers took the day off in protest of U.S. military action in Iraq.Bruce Holte, secretary/treasurer of the International Lonshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union Local 8 in Portland, said his 1,300 workers from ports in Portland, Vancouver, Astoria and Longview are part of 25,000 ILWU at 29 West Coast ports who are standing down in protest of the war.
"We're taking a stance for the majority of Americans who oppose the war in Iraq," Holte said.
Thousands of dockworkers at 29 West Coast ports, including Los Angeles and Long Beach, took the day off work today in what their union called a protest of the war in Iraq, effectively shutting down operations at the busy complexes.The show of force by the union came two months before the contract expires between the dockworkers, represented by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, and the Pacific Maritime Assn., which represents port operators and large shippers, many of them foreign-owned.
"We are supporting the troops and telling politicians in Washington that it's time to end the war in Iraq," said union President Bob McEllrath. ...
"Is this a voluntary war protest or a strike aimed at leveraging labor negotiations--we're not sure," said Steve Getzug, spokesman for the Pacific Maritime Assn. "We're concerned. We thought these kinds of old tricks were a thing of the past."The dockworkers' action also affected ports in Oakland, Seattle and San Diego, and was expected to last from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m....
The union's action demonstrated the discipline of its membership. It also serves as a reminder of the 2002 dispute between the maritime association and the dockworkers that paralyzed West Coast ports for 10 days.
Discuss.
|
May 01, 2008
Posted in in the news. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
May 1, '08
Freagin awesome.
However, I never knew dock workers were elitists. I am sure Obama's lack of a flag pin is somehow part of their protest as well.
3:03 p.m.
May 1, '08
Hard hats and hippies? Awesome. It took 40 years but it's great to see.
May 1, '08
Just shows the awful power that unions can have. No concern for the workers or companies of the destination of those items; no concern about some poor family that might suffer because of their antics; typical.
May 1, '08
Bravo, members of ILWU! Peace is a workingclass value.
May 1, '08
Back at you, Justa Dog:
Just shows the awful power that warmongering imperialists can have. No concern for the people or infrastructure of the destination of those bombs; no concern about some poor family that might suffer because of their antics; typical.
May 1, '08
@ Justa Dog:
These workers are willing to lose a day's pay (and we don't know if they union is making up lost pay or not via designated strike funds) in order to protest an illegal war, not to mention the lack of attention paid by this administration to the safety and security of people employed by the ports, not to mention goods coming into the country without appropriate screening. The port administrative bodies have been complicit in the administration's ignorance of security at the ports, and hopefully this will send the message they need to get on the ball NOW.
This is what solidarity is all about- strength in numbers. These are not "antics" of "awful power" of unions. The members of ILWU are patriots for this protest, and I for one salute them.
May 1, '08
I'm torn. I'm very opposed to the war myself, but interrupting the flow of supplies to the war puts servicemembers' lives at risk. Of course, I'm assuming that some of the supplies were going to the Middle East, but that seems like a safe bet, given the scope of the strike.
3:23 p.m.
May 1, '08
This was a protest, obviously designed for high visibility. It's absurd to suggest that shutting the ports down for a day had any negative impact on the lives of service personnel in Iraq or Afghanistan.
May 1, '08
mlw,
You sound like Nancy Pelosi.
May 1, '08
I guy would be proud an honored to be a member of such an organisation! Good on you brothers and sister of the ILWU.
May 1, '08
mlw,
You might as well say that you are afraid of being responsible for any consequences of doing the right thing, so you are willing to cede all power to the war criminals in the White House and at other undisclosed locations.
May 1, '08
from The Weekly Update from Oregon AFL-CIO:
Longshore Workers Stand Down at Ports, Up for Americans
Hundreds of Oregon Longshore Workers, in concert with more than 25,000 workers at 29 ports along the West Coast, stood down on the job today to call for an end to the war in Iraq.
ILWU International President Bob McEllrath told reporters that longshore workers were standing down on the job to stand up for America. "Big Foreign corporations that control global shipping aren't loyal or accountable to any country," said McEllrath. "For them it's all about making money. But longshore workers are different. We're loyal to America and we won't stand by while our country, our troops and our economy are destroyed by a war that's bankrupting us to the tune of $3 trillion. It's time to stand up and we're doing our part today."
In Portland, workers gathered on the Willamette River Esplanade and threw a rose into the water for each Oregonian killed in the war.
May 1, '08
Au contraire! Actually, the majority of logistical supplies to the Middle East travel by ship, including from West Coast ports. These supplies include ammunition, body armor, MRAP vehicles and critical war materiel. Shipping by air is not economical or practical, given the volume and weight of items to be shipped. Shipping schedules are very tight, and short disruptions can cause unpredictable cascade delays. An Army, as they say, marches on its stomach, not its feet.
Further, interrupting the shipment of war materiel is not the democratic way of addressing change. If you want to change the policies of the war, you should address them to the civilian leadership that orders the military to war, not the military supply chain. It's critically important to oppose the war, not the people who fight it at the behest of the people we (in the larger democratic sense) elected. Interrupting commercial schedules seems reasonable enough to me, but interrupting the flow of war materiel does put lives at risk, not just in Iraq, but also in Afghanistan and other places.
May 1, '08
mlw,
You sound like Nancy Pelosi.
:lol:
And justadog sounds like Senator Clinton on the O'Reilly show: "Rich people. God bless us."
4:29 p.m.
May 1, '08
No war materiel. This is b.s.
Here's the AP: J. Craig Shearman, a spokesman for the National Retail Federation, said shippers and exporters expected no significant, long-term disruptions from the walkout.
"This is something that happens every year," Shearman said. "Shippers and exporters know about it and plan around it, and we don't expect to see any significant disruptions from it."
Shearman said many longshore workers on the West Coast took the day off last year to participate in immigration rallies.
May 1, '08
@ mlw:
You're full of it: even the ports said it wouldn't impact anything-
From the LA Times: "Still, both union and port officials said they did not expect the loss of a single shift to affect the overall operations. At the ports in Los Angeles and Long Beach today, 15 ships were due to dock. Port officials said all were coming into berth as expected and will wait there until work gets underway again about 6 p.m."
This was a day-shift stand down. Workers will be on the job for swing and graveyard.
Take your concern trolling somewhere else.
May 1, '08
I spent the day in Seattle, marching down Alaska Way with the members of ILWU Local 19 and their community supporters. Here in Portland, the members, officers and staff of ILWU Local 8 were in top form.
Some highlights:
The communications team fielded press calls from across the globe (I got dozens of calls before 10 am).
Longshore workers, officers and staff got "thank you" and "God bless you" calls throughout the day.
Someone baked apple pies for members in Southern California and brought them in to the union hall with American flags on toothpicks on top.
I had lots of conversations with longshore workers who told me why they were taking the day off. Al, A longshore crane operator in Seattle, told me that his 19-year-old son is in the Marines, and that he wants those men and women to come home and build our own country back up.
When I have a better Internet connection, I'm going to try to post the video I took of Al on YouTube, and and other news from the day. In the meantime, feel free to check out the Longshore web sites at http://www.ilwu.org or http://www.contract2008.org.
May 1, '08
I spent the day in Seattle, marching down Alaska Way with the members of ILWU Local 19 and their community supporters. Here in Portland, the members, officers and staff of ILWU Local 8 were in top form.
Some highlights:
The communications team fielded press calls from across the globe (I got dozens of calls before 10 am).
Longshore workers, officers and staff got "thank you" and "God bless you" calls throughout the day.
Someone baked apple pies for members in Southern California and brought them in to the union hall with American flags on toothpicks on top.
I had lots of conversations with longshore workers who told me why they were taking the day off. Al, A longshore crane operator in Seattle, told me that his 19-year-old son is in the Marines, and that he wants those men and women to come home and build our own country back up.
When I have a better Internet connection, I'm going to try to post the video I took of Al on YouTube, and and other news from the day. In the meantime, feel free to check out the Longshore web sites at http://www.ilwu.org or http://www.contract2008.org.
May 1, '08
SOLIDARITY!!!! We should all take similar actions....get organized, stop work. Obviously our weak little voices have not been heard. Nor have our votes. Maybe someone will pay attention to the lack of the sweat of our brows. Interesting that Exon M. reports record profits, again, on May Day. Talk about thumbing their nose at working Americans who are trying to figure out how the balance the transpo/food/shelter budget, as a war in an oil rich country lumbers on, draining our coffers.
BTW I got a nasty little generic/anon. author email today from a misguided acquaintance....it details the list of woes that have befallen Americans since the 2006 elections. Blaming the Democrats, as though the course we're on and have inherited was not set up for disaster by 6 and more years of GOP rule. Expect more of this I suppose. But it was pretty ugly.
May 1, '08
Just shows the awful power that unions can have. No concern for the workers or companies of the destination of those items; no concern about some poor family that might suffer because of their antics; typical.
What BS.
May 1, '08
Obama is mainly pro-Hamas. If this comes out during the general election against McCain - it will result in defeat for Democrats.
"Following that meeting, the entire region was suddenly deflated after Damascus received the wrong message and acted based upon it, along with Iran, in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine. New disasters broke out in the entire region after the Syrian-Iranian alliance and their followers, Hezbollah and Hamas, assumed that President Bush had become a lame duck and that they were capable of implementing their agendas.
"Today, the same thing applies to Mash'al's meeting with Obama; it will end with an American skirmish that Mash'al will exploit in the media and which will send the wrong signal to Hamas and others - in hope that the advent of the Democrats will benefit Hamas, Syria and Iran"
May 1, '08
mlw, Your fighting age, so get the over there! We need you man!
May 1, '08
Boy, the trolls are really out in force today...
May 1, '08
Just shows the awful power that unions can have. No concern for the workers or companies of the destination of those items; no concern about some poor family that might suffer because of their antics; typical.
Yeah. I can just see some poor sheik expecting to have his gold-plated Hummer delivered on the dock in the morning and having to stand out all day in the hot sun waiting to pick up his dune buggy in the evening instead. Those heartless longshoremen!
Justa Dog: You should get together with Drew Obama is mainly pro-Hamas Stanley and the other 28-percenters still loyal to Bush and talk about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and how he engineered 9/11. You'll enjoy that much better than being a troll on this web site.
May 1, '08
I'm very opposed to the war myself, but interrupting the flow of supplies to the war puts servicemembers' lives at risk.
If a 10- or 12-hour delay in delivery of supplies shipped from the West Coast to the Gulf puts servicemembers' lives at risk, there is something wrong with the people running the military supply system.
May 1, '08
Local 8, Steve Novick has a hook. It is time to sideline some professional Democrats!
May 1, '08
Who the hell has a house in D.C.?
May 1, '08
That's outstanding. They killed two birds with one stone.
May 1, '08
TWIC is NAZI bullshit!
May 1, '08
What do you want kids?
May 1, '08
Actually, I deploy later this month, despite my disagreement with the war. How many of you critics can say that you are willing to do the same? How many of you have served 14 years in the service? How many of your children's birthdays have you missed serving in combat zones?
Sure, call me a troll, but it's not you who will be risking your life at the end of the logistical chain. I'm glad you have the right to criticize - it's one of the reasons I fight. But, please, use that freedom with some responsibility. Otherwise, we're no better than the guy in the White House.
May 1, '08
Don't die for me kid! We don't care! I have blood in the game and I say BULLSHIT!
May 1, '08
come on, nobody wants to respond to this! Life and how we live it you dick heads!
May 2, '08
mlw,
The question that occurs to me is: why would someone who understands what the US is doing in Iraq be willing to serve there?
In any case, I wish you a safe and whole return to civilian life after your service.
12:50 a.m.
May 2, '08
Local 8 of the ILWU, in addition to their work stoppage, held a commemoration ceremony at the floating dock just north of the Burnside bridge on the Willamette River in Portland. About 200 people attended, half or more were Local 8 members, a number of other unionists, a substantial contingent from Veterans for Peace, plus other activists with the PDX Peace Coalition & its member organizations (VFP is part of PDX Peace). There were two short speeches. One by Peter Parks of IlWU Local 8 described the costs of the war in human lives of both U.S. servicepeople and Iraqis, touched on economic consequences and on how the recruiting system targets working class youth, and mentioned a number of messages of solidarity and solidarity actions. Of these, perhaps the most important was from dockworkers in Iraq, who struck for an hour in solidarity with the U.S. West Coast Longshore Workers. (More below). The other speech was by Harvey Thorstad of Veterans for Peace.
Following the speeches, and after removing hats in respect, ILWU members and other particpants put 800 yellow carnations into the river, each representing 5 U.S. service people who have died in the Iraq occupation. An earlier message from Local 8 noted that if flowers for Iraqi dead were put in on the same basis, they would cover the whole river. The Iraqi dead were remembered in words in the speeches.
The overall message of the event was: Stop the War, Bring the Troops Home Now!
A crucial element of the solidarity statement from the Iraqi dockworkers and another from a wider grouping of Iraqi unions was their description of efforts by the U.S.-backed occupation government of Iraq to abolish free trade unionism and replace extant unions with a single state union -- a form of pseudo-unionism familiar from totalitarian and authoritarian regimes around the world and I believe a return to the practice under the Ba'ath Party government of Saddam Hussein and his predecessors, who specifically targeted unionists. Another important feature of the Iraqi unionists' statements was their oppostion to both the occupation by the U.S. and violent sectarian forces in Iraq.
We need to demand that our government not promote or condone the suppression of Iraqi workers' rights to organize by the U.S.-backed government.
The ILWU action was one of several anti-war actions and activities on May 1, International Workers' Day. At Portland State University, students, faculty and community activists held an event 6 hour event titled, "End the War—It's Up to Us: A Community Information and Strategy Session" which seems likely to lead to the formation of PSU's first specifically anti-war organization during the current occupation. Activities included panel presentations of information about the war & experiences, films, performances of songs and improvisational theater, and discussions of strategy for building an anti-war movement at PSU.
Highlights included moving testimonies from student veterans of the Iraq war, from members of military families with loved ones in Iraq, or killed there, or returned and struggling with the aftermath of war, from Vietnam-era veterans, again with Veterans for Peace, including one PSU faculty member, Michael Taylor of the School of Social Work, and from a member of the PSU counseling staff who works specifically with student veterans in helping them to readjust to civilian and university life. The older veterans and representative of Military Families Speak Out made a point of informing participants in the event that they were available to provide support to returned new vets and to military families, as well as working to advocate for veterans' rights and needs.
In addition there was related testimony by Kayse Jama of the Center for Intercultural Organizing who talked about refugee issues and about the wars in his country of birth, Somalia, which are virtually overlooked in the U.S. despite extensive U.S. involvement, directly and via a proxy invasion by Ethiopia.
A recurrent themes in the the discussions was the connection between worsening economic conditions and polarization of wealth in the country, the need for college education combined with rising cost of such education even at public universities like PSU, and military recruitment based on hopes for gaining educational benefits. A particularly insidious feature of this connection that emerged concerned the National Guard -- education benefits for members of the Guard are only available while you are an active member, so that with the multiple deployments used by the military, in fact many Guard members never can use those benefits -- but this Catch-22 of course is not explained clearly at recruitment.
The more general point was that rising costs of public higher education contribute to the "poverty draft" that restricts the burdens of the wars at home and places them in high disproportion on young working class men and women and their families.
Finally, May 1 was again a day of demonstration against anti-immigrant policies in the U.S. and their effects not only on undocumented immigrants but on legal immigrants and U.S. citizens in communities within which undocumented workers live. In Portland this year, organizers of the event explicitly tied it to International Workers' Day, since overwhelmingly immigrants are working people, and also tied it to the anti-war actions by ILWU up and down the coast, with the theme of the day being "Stop the War on Working People at Home and Abroad." Immigrant ralliers and marchers were joined by many trade unionists and peace/ anti-war activists in solidarity, and in addition to a stop by city hall, the march stopped for a considerable period at the Hilton Hotel, where UNITE-HERE Local 9 is organizing an on-going boycott to protest management's refusal to bargain in good faith over union demands for living wages and decent benefits. Again the labor-immigrant connection was highlighted, since many hotel workers are immigrants.
As the economy worsens, and no end is in sight for the occupation of Iraq, these events showed a convergence of popular movements by U.S. dissidents, efforts at finding new forms of action, and efforts to overcome the sense of futility and hopelessness engendered by the fact of the government ignoring the will of the people concerning the continued occupation of Iraq.
It was a notable feature of all the events that the Democratic Party, its members of Congress, and its presidential candidates were objects of considerable skepticism, distrust, and a sense of betrayal; there was a certain presence of people backing Barack Obama for president out of hope, but even many of the Obama people expressed uncertainty that he would live up to his promises of hope, and saw his plan for getting the U.S. out of Iraq as inadequate and ambiguous.
Congressional Democrats have lost a great deal of credibility by not following through on the promises of the 2006 elections. If the same thing happens after this year, particularly if a Democrat is elected as president, there will be large-scale abandonment of the DP as the vehicle of hopes for ending the war, and a concommitant decline of electoral support for party candidates.
Party activists may fulminate all they want about that realiity, but it is a reality.
May 2, '08
Want to fight in it? No, I don't really want to fight in it. I just think that it's my duty, as a military professional, to follow the lawful orders of the elected civilian leadership, whether I agree with them or not. That is inherent in the principle of civilian control of the military. Some missions I agree with, some I do not. I rely on you to organize to elect responsible leaders to make the decisions about where we fight. To put it plainly, some missions I believe in, some I do not, but I never WANT to get shot at.
That's the larger point we sometimes seem to be missing in these discussions. The military isn't the enemy. In fact, the military has opposed many of the things that we oppose in this forum. We took a stand against torture, and now the discussion about torture is about the CIA, not DoD. It was not the military that wanted to go into Iraq, it was the Bush administration.
Regarding the main thread, it does appear that they thought more about the effects of the strike. For that, I applaud them. Thank you to the other commenters for doing the additional background research.
May 2, '08
mlw- "The military isn't the enemy."
War is the enemy. The Military Industrial Complex is the enemy.
I was the enemy when I served in Vietnam and you will be the enemy when you serve in Iraq.
May 2, '08
Want to fight in it? No, I don't really want to fight in it. I just think that it's my duty, as a military professional, to follow the lawful orders of the elected civilian leadership, whether I agree with them or not.
The Nuremberg Trials were held after the Second World War during which Nazis charged with war crimes tried to defend themselves with the excuse that they were following orders. A principle came out of those trials that following orders did not justify immoral acts - a principle ignored repeatedly by the Pentagon, but not by a number of servicemen. For more visit Courage to Resist
May 2, '08
mlw,
Bill Boden's point is crucial, but it is important to not overreact to the analogy to Nazi Germany. No one suggests you are a Nazi, or that serving in Iraq is equivalent to running a death camp. The important issue is immoral and illegal military behavior that is ordered by leaders, whether civilian or military. The accepted view is that there is no requirement to execute immoral or illegal orders, and furthermore, that following immoral or illegal orders may constitute a war crime.
You will need to grapple with that issue. The reality is that only the defeated are held responsible for war crimes. Of course, should the military power of the US collapse, you might be called to account by the international community.
Regarding the strike action by ILWU, we might consider how we would consider a similar action by German workers during World War II. My guess is that most Americans would consider such workers heroes, and would view almost any action designed to end Germany's atrocities as justified.
Most Americans also know people who serve in our military and care about them. They do not consider them criminals, but either brave servants of their nation or victims of evil or stupid leaders. Those outside the US do not share our kinship to US service-people. They would be the ones who would sit in judgment of US war crimes, should the political situation change enough to bring about such legal action.
May 2, '08
Although we are far down the road from the initial thread, I would like to respond.
First, you are partially correct - military members can and should refused to follow unlawful orders. It's not about morality, it's about legality. While "illegal" has been thrown around frequently, in this context it means whether the courts have held that an order to deploy to Iraq is legal. They have. The general proposition was upheld in US v. New, a case where a soldier refused to deploy to the Balkans as a peacekeeper. Specifically, in many "war restister" cases, the courts have held that an order to deploy to Iraq is a legal one. Now, you may legitimately believe that, in the international sense, the war is illegal. I don't dispute that point. However, in the narrow context of whether it's lawful to order someone to deploy to Iraq, it indisputably is.
You ask that I, and others, refuse anyway. To do so would go against two ideals I believe in very strongly - the rule of law and subordination of the military to civilian authority. Obey the rule of law means that I may bring up whether or not it is a lawful order to deploy, but, once the issue is decided by a court, I am obliged to follow it. The rule of law is essential to any democracy. I suppose you could then suggest that I engage in "civil disobedience". I don't dispute that nonviolent civil disobedience has a legitimate role in our society, but not in the military. The reason we have never had a military dictatorship in this country is that the military does NOT refuse to follow the lawful orders of the elected civilian leadership. Any other system would inevitably end up in a military dictatorship. You wouldn't want a rightist military dictatorship, so what makes it OK to advocate for a leftist one?
The point is this - we should argue for a change of policy through legitimate means. We should not, however, seek to undermine the very institutions that support our form of government to do it.
May 2, '08
Bill Boden's point is crucial, but it is important to not overreact to the analogy to Nazi Germany.
Tom: Thanks for pointing this out. I should have taken time to clarify that I wasn't equating anyone with Nazis but was demonstrating a principle.
mlw: First of all, let me say I respect your thoughtfulness on this issue and wish you well. You ask that I, and others, refuse anyway. No one is asking you to refuse to serve. We are just presenting what we believe are facts for your consideration.
The reason we have never had a military dictatorship in this country is that the military does NOT refuse to follow the lawful orders of the elected civilian leadership.
Germany in the 1930s got a dictatorship in part because the German General Staff submitted to the authority of the state and an alliance with corporations meant that Germany got a fascist dictatorship. The military was able to say they were following lawful orders, according to German law, but many of those laws and orders proved to be immoral, and if there is any conflict between the law and morality the latter should prevail. (As the venerable Dr. Samuel Johnson said with reference to another point of law, "If that is the law, Sir, then the law is an ass.")
The war on Iraq is clearly illegal in being in violation of the United Nations Charter and the Geneva Conventions, but fortunately for the Bush Administration and the brass at the Pentagon, as Tom indicated above, victors' justice prevails.
Again, mlw, I wish you and your comrades well and that you all return safely to your loved ones.
May 2, '08
Ah, the Nazis always make such good bad examples!
I don't dispute that an order to commit genocide or something facially illegal would be something that I would be obligated to refuse. However, the rule of law being what it is, I'm bound by the decisions of the domestic and international courts. The domestic courts, as you concede, have found the conflict to be legal. The international bodies that could overrule, at least in theory, that finding, have not done so (yet). Where is the UN Resolution recinding the earlier use of force authorizations? Where is the decision of a recognized international court finding that the war is illegal under international law? In fact, the international precedents are all to the contrary. We might WISH that the UN would "deauthorize" action in Iraq, but they have not done so.
The point I'm making is this - military service inherently involves the subordination of individual conscience to lawful authority. Lawful authority is given by domestic and international civilian institutions. The rule of law means that the military and the individuals in it are bound by the existing determinations of those bodies. They have not ruled against the war.
We tend to be inexact in our language. Just because I'm opposed to the war doesn't mean that it is illegal. Just because you believe it to be illegal, doesn't make it illegal. To assert otherwise is an anti-democratic sentiment. Under existing law and precedent, whether or not I agree with it, the war is legal. Granted, those precendents may change in the future, just as the civilian authorities may change our policies in the future. We should advocate for that goal through lawful and democratic processes, not by saying that our opinions are the law.
May 2, '08
mlw,
I would not presume to tell you what to do in this situation. Refusing to deploy would likely lead to severe negative consequences - of course, deploying might lead to the same. You must make your own decisions.
Relying in US court decisions or the lack of international court decisions is not protection against future legal problems, however. US courts have seldom, if ever, challenged US military action. Do you suppose that German courts had ruled Hitler's policies illegal as they were being executed? As far as I know, neither were there international legal decisions that established the illegality of German actions. That did not protect members of the German military from being convicted at Nuremberg and in other courts afterward.
This is certainly a Catch 22 situation for military personnel, who can choose between present legal sanction by the US and possible future sanction by international courts.
May 2, '08
Hard hats and hippies? Awesome. It took 40 years but it's great to see.
Lol! It's the hippies who've been missing from the fight, certainly not the ILWU.
May 2, '08
Bill Bodden,
I believe "...the law is an ass..." is Dickens, from the mouth of Mr. Bumble of Oliver Twist. Did Johnson write it first?
2:07 p.m.
May 2, '08
The ILWU was not with the "hard hats" in the Vietnam era, they opposed that war too.
Real hippies were apolitical and generally down on political activists.
John Mulvey, say what you like, but when 30,000 of us turned out to try to stop the war one last time in March 2003, "hippies" is what the Lars Larsons of Portland and the world were calling us, or "hippy wannabes" who didn't honestly oppose the war but just had some weird sort of '60s nostalgia.
I thought the ungrammatical Mr. Bumble said "the law is a ass..."?
May 2, '08
I believe "...the law is an ass..." is Dickens, from the mouth of Mr. Bumble of Oliver Twist. Did Johnson write it first?
I picked up my version years ago and trusted the source with verification, but it appears I'm indebted to you, Tom, for correcting me. According to a Google search, credit goes to Mr. Bumble.
May 2, '08
Bill,
It's always been a favorite of mine. In a PBS version played version many years ago [likely from BBC], Bumble, who is quite a malapropist says,
"If the law says that, the law are a ass - a idiot."
which I think has a nice ring to it.
May 2, '08
and Chris Lowe is correct, "a", not "an".
In modern America, Bumble might be elected POTUS on the Republican ticket.
May 2, '08
Genocide has vague legal definitions and I know that you don't get there by just counting bodies but...