The How and why of President Obama Quoting me on TV:

Radioactivity Spike in Scotland after Baghdad Bombing
Radioactivity Spike in Scotland after Baghdad Bombing

Infants in Iraq are born with mutations, attributed to the increased radioactivity from military munitions. It is now public information that within 3 weeks alone, the USA dropped a million pounds of depleted uranium (DU) in Iraq. The 'shock and awe' bombing of Baghdad created such a large radioactive cloud that it was detected in Scotland--a fact which Halliburton suppressed for many years, Almost all other nations in the world now regard DU as a weapon of mass destruction (WMD), and ironically, the USA invaded Iraq for the unproved reason that it was manufacturing WMDs; an inconvenient truth which the USA has buried in time, but is not forgotten elsewhere. In the most recent United Nations resolution on DU, 143 countries voted to ban it entirely. Only Britain, the United States, France and Israel voted against the ban of DU. Moreover, British support for nuclear contamination has been a main driving factor in Scotland's massive call for secession from the UK, so Britain is clearly divided on the issue too. And as DU continues to decay into worse isotopes, even more leukemia, infant deformity, and death of innocents is anticipated for decades, if not centuries, to come.

After reading my blogs on that in 2006, the retired supreme court attorney Vincent Bugliosi wrote a book stating President Bush should be tried for murder. In 2007, the DoD found out, threatened me with prison for life without trial, declared me a 'known terrorist sympathizer,' and only dropped their continued assault on my freedom because I am 'too poor to be a threat,' on condition I never spoke publicly about it again. Under continuing threats by the DoD, I had a mental breakdown. I lost my job, my wife divorced me, and I was too frightened even to tell my family why, being on the 'terrorist watchlist,' I could not fly to see them.

But now republican senators, such as Senator Rubio, argue FOR the sale of weapons to known terrorists. The republican senate blocked a democratic measure to prevent the sale of weapons to known killers -- twice.

President Bush himself stated, "From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime" (Sept 20, 2001). On that grounds, I, a pacifist seeking only possible legal accountability for war crimes, was threatened with life imprisonment, but the same party support the sale of weapons to known terrorists? Could you deny the republican party has become a hostile regime?

While I have tried to respect the US government and its actions since I recovered from the mental breakdown it gave me, I cannot remain conscionably silent any further. Frankly, I would feel safer in prison than to live free in a country that willingly sells weapons to terrorists. So if the DoD wants to arrest me now, after 143 nations have decided it used WMDs in Iraq, then I say, DoD, go ahead. My life is destroyed anyway. But rather, I hopefully urge the DoD itself, even after all that it has done to me, and I urge all others with my strongest voice, to join in my campaign that the USA not sell weapons to terrorists! And I urge others not to ignore lack of accountability for war crimes by an administration which, since that time, has also escaped trial for torture, let alone the issue of whether depleted uranium is a WMD!

Practical Pacifism

All through history, pacifists have been subject to persecution by those who prefer war as a solution, just as I have been persecuted for being a pacifist. So I was threatened with life imprisonment without trial because I was outspoken against the Iraq war. But at that time, provisions for homeland security contravened all but one of the Bill of Rights. Far worse crimes against civil liberties were committed against others besides me, including far worse torture and loss than the intimidation subjected upon me. So I have no axe to grind for myself, and ask no compensation for the losses my beliefs have caused me. But I cannot conceivably allow a government to sell weapons to terrorists and remain silent of my own past, even though I was told not to speak publicly of what was done to me under threat of renewed persecution, because that past is why I am so committed to preventing the sale of weapons to terrorists now.

As a pacifist, one has an ideal in mind- a world without war and violence. But practically, only so much can be done about it, and one thing that most definitely can be done about it is not to sell weapons to terrorists! Only those who want more terrorism could support selling weapons to terrorists. The republican senate supported legal sale of weapons to terrorists and continues to argue for it.

Who is worse: the person who commits acts of terrorism for their own ideals, or the person who directly enables deaths from terrorism and uses power to escape culpability?

Practically speaking, those in power who enable terrorism by acts of their own power, while claiming they wish to wage war against terrorism, are the most dangerous, because they use the results of their own actions which create more war to empower themselves. So it is incumbent on pacifists to speak against them, whatever the consequence, and demand public awareness of their hypocrisy, Those who want war because it is their ideal are known dangers. Those who enable war and claim they are acting to protect us from it are the most dangerous of all. They are the hostile regimes who claim to protect us from hostility, whilst using their power to enable it all the more. If the schism between warmongers, gun owners, and those just wanting a peaceful life continues as it is, it is likely the next Republican-driven war will cause secession in the USA too, or even worse, for much similar reasons as in Scotland. Otherwise, what must we do to appease those so keen on gun ownership and defending ourselves from ourselves?

What do republicans really want? Do we need a civil war to please them? Do we need to use WMDs again, just as most countries think we already did in Iraq? And worst of all, do we have to sell weapons to terrorists while waging war on them? Do we need to let even more hypocrisy continue? Apparently, the answer now could put this pacifist, powerless as I am, behind bars, while those in power continue to make lethal weapons, continue to kill, and continue to create unnecessary hostility, all the while claiming it is someone else's fault.It is my only small hope that the Department of Defense itself will support my call to ban selling of weapons to terrorists. And that is all. Good night, and good luck.

For More Information

"We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, ANY nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime" ~ George Bush Jr., September 20, 2001.