News Item: Our support to Ward Churchill
Posted by brigitte
Wed 09 Feb 2005 - 13:47:36
Our support is sent today to Ward Churchill, a University of Colorado professor, who is under fire for saying that World Trade Center victims were not innocent and has refused to apologize for his remarks. His central message was that the September 11, 2001 attacks had been provoked by US foreign policy like the Prophet RAEL has been saying all along. In his essay, Some People Push Back, written shortly after 9/11, Churchill said the hijackers had mounted "counter attacks" in the face of hostile US policy in the Middle East and a campaign of "genocide" against Iraq through the trade sanctions imposed after the first Gulf war. This is common sense and this view is shared by a majority of the people on this planet but it is still considered as an offence to say so in the US.
RAEL reminds us that we need a Gandhi in the US. “Imagine what the world would be today if instead of Bush, there was a Gandhi as a President of the United States”, was He saying last Sunday in front of a group of raelians who came to receive His teachings…. Imagine….
January 31, 2005
The following is a statement from Ward Churchill:
In the last few days there has been widespread and grossly inaccurate media coverage concerning my analysis of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, coverage that has resulted in defamation of my character and threats against my life. What I actually said has been lost, indeed turned into the opposite of itself, and I hope the following facts will be reported at least to the same extent that the fabrications have been.
* The piece circulating on the internet was developed into a book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. Most of the book is a detailed chronology of U.S. military interventions since 1776 and U.S. violations of international law since World War II. My point is that we cannot allow the U.S. government, acting in our name, to engage in massive violations of international law and fundamental human rights and not expect to reap the consequences.
* I am not a \"defender\"of the September 11 attacks, but simply pointing out that if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of that destruction is returned. I have never said that people \"should\" engage in armed attacks on the United States, but that such attacks are a natural and unavoidable consequence of unlawful U.S. policy. As Martin Luther King, quoting Robert F. Kennedy, said, \"Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable.\"
* This is not to say that I advocate violence; as a U.S. soldier in Vietnam I witnessed and participated in more violence than I ever wish to see. What I am saying is that if we want an end to violence, especially that perpetrated against civilians, we must take the responsibility for halting the slaughter perpetrated by the United States around the world. My feelings are reflected in Dr. King\'s April 1967 Riverside speech, where, when asked about the wave of urban rebellions in U.S. cities, he said, \"I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed . . . without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today my own government.\"
* In 1996 Madeleine Albright, then Ambassador to the UN and soon to be U.S. Secretary of State, did not dispute that 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of economic sanctions, but stated on national television that \"we\" had decided it was \"worth the cost.\" I mourn the victims of the September 11 attacks, just as I mourn the deaths of those Iraqi children, the more than 3 million people killed in the war in Indochina, those who died in the U.S. invasions of Grenada, Panama and elsewhere in Central America, the victims of the transatlantic slave trade, and the indigenous peoples still subjected to genocidal policies. If we respond with callous disregard to the deaths of others, we can only expect equal callousness to American deaths.
* Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims as \"Nazis.\" What I said was that the \"technocrats of empire\" working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of \"little Eichmanns.\" Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were legitimately targeted by the Allies.
* It is not disputed that the Pentagon was a military target, or that a CIA office was situated in the World Trade Center. Following the logic by which U.S. Defense Department spokespersons have consistently sought to justify target selection in places like Baghdad, this placement of an element of the American \"command and control infrastructure\" in an ostensibly civilian facility converted the Trade Center itself into a \"legitimate\" target. Again following U.S. military doctrine, as announced in briefing after briefing, those who did not work for the CIA but were nonetheless killed in the attack amounted to no more than \"collateral damage.\" If the U.S. public is prepared to accept these \"standards\" when the are routinely applied to other people, they should be not be surprised when the same standards are applied to them.
* It should be emphasized that I applied the \"little Eichmanns\" characterization only to those described as \"technicians.\" Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-1-1 attack. According to Pentagon logic, were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that\'s my point. It\'s no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else. If we ourselves do not want to be treated in this fashion, we must refuse to allow others to be similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name.
* The bottom line of my argument is that the best and perhaps only way to prevent 9-1-1-style attacks on the U.S. is for American citizens to compel their government to comply with the rule of law. The lesson of Nuremberg is that this is not only our right, but our obligation. To the extent we shirk this responsibility, we, like the \"Good Germans\" of the 1930s and \'40s, are complicit in its actions and have no legitimate basis for complaint when we suffer the consequences. This, of course, includes me, personally, as well as my family, no less than anyone else.
* These points are clearly stated and documented in my book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, which recently won Honorary Mention for the Gustavus Myer Human Rights Award. for best writing on human rights. Some people will, of course, disagree with my analysis, but it presents questions that must be addressed in academic and public debate if we are to find a real solution to the violence that pervades today\'s world. The gross distortions of what I actually said can only be viewed as an attempt to distract the public from the real issues at hand and to further stifle freedom of speech and academic debate in this country.
January 31, 2005
This news item is from Raelianews
( http://raelianews.org/news.php?extend.19 )
Render time: 1.5529 sec, 0.2871 of that for queries.