Support Independent Journalism!
9/11 Blogger receives no foundational or corporate support other than from the ads below. We depend on your support. Help us cover the news and improve the site by becoming a monthly donor.
Down Payments As Low As $0 877-432-5626
Today, Cindy Sheehan organized a protest out in front of CIA Headquarters to protest the illegal drone bombings taking place. Afterwards, we went to Dick Cheney's house to deliver this.
Thank you Jon, Cindy and Betsy for personally delivering a message for me and all the rest of us.
A Gandhian approach would warn against directing venom at anyone's house, because it would be a lot easier for neutrals and, in this case, Cheney sympathizers and supporters to actually figure they should be afraid we will come to their house, making it harder for such folk to have their hearts touched by us. Ultimately Gandhi differs from advocates of civil resistance in that he tries to touch the heart of the adversary rather than just appeal to supporters. Most people don't have the character of courage to try to be Gandhian. However, those who chose civil resistance should not be disparaged. It's a LOT better than being a couch potato.
It saddened me to find my old friend Jon Gold would seemingly stand with Cindy for the suppression of discussion of Gandhian resistance.I don't know if my yellow banner in the bottom right corner of the Joshua Smith picture was purposely made unreadable or not. It read "Stop Suppressing Discussion of Gandhian Resistance." I plead with him regularly that people should be able to disagree without generating venom.
As I stated in my keynote speech at St Mark's Church in NYC this past 9/13 at the WE Demand Transparency Conference, it's hard for me to envision 911truth activists using Gandhian resistance because it is so difficult for most truthers to even be polite.
As many of you know, I have primarily been a truth activist for years.
David Slesinger email@example.com
Was a disgrace. Protesting AGAINST Cindy Sheehan? It is the same thing you have threatened to do or have done to different 9/11 Truth Groups over the years. What is your problem David? Do you not see people doing their best to make a difference? You make it VERY difficult for people to want to work alongside you. It's not something I will do again.
It saddens me that you oppose any semblance of internal democracy. I believe most truth activists stand with you in this way. It is why the culture of the truth movement is inferior to the culture of the left, despite the left's terrible suppression of truth issues. That suppression is an exception with the left. Suppression of any disagreement is central to the truth movement. Please note I support the right of mainstream truth activists to exclude no planers from their public face. It just oppose vitriol toward the no planers.
Please note I made no disruptive sounds, making it easy for anyone who wanted to ignore me. My opposition maintained high principle.
You've just been complaining to people about your alleged "suppression" from Cindy Sheehan because she's not being Gandhi enough for you. You made no "disruptive" sounds, but your presence with your sign, and your attempt at getting behind the stage so as to be in every picture was disgraceful. Gandhi was primarily about non-violent resistence. No one was violent. Check. We were there to resist the drone bombings. Check. That wasn't good enough for you. We are trying to build bridges with other groups, and your actions would impede that from happening.
It was about Cindy's refusal to let me participate in the POTA deliberations. Besides, I didn't act as a truth activist, so it should have no effect on links to the truth movement. As you should note, I praise Cindy several times in my leaflet.
Your understanding of nonviolence appears to be too limited for you to support suppression of such discussion. You seem committed to being ignorant about nonviolence. Please show me I am in error on that point.
Three people, including you, were publicly hostile to me at the rally.
Matt Daloisio, who has a strong background in nonviolence, had a real conversation with me. To honor him, I took the banner down.
The speaker from Maine and Joshua Smith, a speaker from Texas, agreed to talk on the phone. You resisted talking on the phone when we were on good terms.
What you were doing, standing behind the stage with your "suppression" sign was "completely uncalled for." I wasn't "publicly hostile" towards you. In fact, if you remember, I took you aside to ask you why you were giving Cindy Sheehan a hard time to try and work it out so you wouldn't do what you did. No one is "suppressing" you, and no one is supporting the "suppression" of you. Could it be David that people just don't agree with you? Why, if someone disagrees with you, are they accused of "suppressing" you? Why, if someone disagrees with you, must you protest them or threaten to protest them? I'm not ignorant of non-violence. I sat through your talk in Chicago in June 2006. I listened to you when Michael Wolsey interviewed you. Why do you think Matt Daloisio asked you to take down the sign? Because it was WRONG to protest the efforts of Cindy Sheehan. Just because people disagree with you does not mean you should cause problems for them, which is exactly what you were doing. You have exhibited this behavior for years, and I think it's wrong.
The comment you made before we got to the stage was hostile in content but not tone. The comment you made while I was behind the stage was hostile in tone. To suggest I haven't been trying to work things out with Cindy is completely unfair. She told me the wrong time for the first meeting of POTA. I left work early, losing significant $ to drive to DC. I assumed she made a mistake. I don't now. My leaflet is clear that I'm fine with people disagreeing with me. That's quite different from saying Cindy isn't into Gandhi enough. I note you have never discussed the issues with me that I raise about nonviolence.
I have no doubt Matt will discuss the issues I raise, which is all I ask.
You should be helping to mediate between me and Cindy. Instead I need help mediating with you. I urge you NOT to avoid mediation.
I urge you to consider this question," Do you think I'm afraid of you?."
Great job guys! Though I'm surprised his house didn't look more like this:
I posted this on Facebook...
And said, "I looked it up on Google Maps..."
Thanks Jon. Great video. Of course thanks to Cindy, Betsy and Josh too.
I wish I could have gone with you. I despise Dick Cheney.
From the event.
Also, if you like this video, please vote it up. Thanks.
except Jon Gold and Cindy Sheehan! Way to go guys. Keep stickin' in their crawl :)
The key to successful truth actions lies in not insulting your target audience or promoting speculation as hard fact.
It's a prop, right? You know, that sign that says, "George Bush Center for Intelligence."
That shit's gotta go.
Of course, that would be HW as opposed to W Bush. Some have argued that the fact that his name is on the building, despite his having served as CIA Director for only one year (1976), further attests to how far back his service to the Agency actually goes.
When someone lies while giving evidence, a judge will dismiss the remainder of that witness' testimony as inadmissable, citing unreliability of the witness (not to mention perjury etc. etc.). Cheney refused to take an oath before testifying to the 9/11 Commission (thus immunizing himself against perjury charges), and then proceeded to lie to the Commission.
Question for Cheney: If it was "al Qaeda" who was responsible for 9/11, why did you lie about your whereabouts that morning? The purpose of lying to a court is to ALWAYS to protect oneself, or others.... there is no other logical reason. So, were you protecting yourself, or were you protecting others, or were you protecting both yourself and others? If it was "others", who were these others? al qaeda agents? ha! as if.
The "media's" coverage of this for the most part has been horrendous. However, WaPo posted some nice pics.
Associated Press Misrepresents Reason for Drone Protest at CIA; Leads to Harassment of Cindy Sheehan
January 14, 2010
To: Associated Press
CC: Jessica Gresko
RE: Misleading article about the January 16th protest at CIA Headquarters
From: Cindy Sheehan representing Peace of the Action
Yesterday, Peace of the Action Coalition organized a protest in front of CIA Headquarters in Langley, Va.
Ms. Gresko, from the AP was at the protest for the entire time. She interviewed me, all of the other speakers, and some of those in attendance.
We feel that all of the speakers at the event and the stated reason for the protest were very clear—we were there protesting the loss of innocent life due to the cowardly and immoral use of drones by the CIA that actually kill about one-hundred times more civilians than “suspected terrorists.”
Since Ms. Gresko’s story came out falsely declaring that we were there to protest the use of drones on “al Qaeda and Taliban,” I have received dozens of hate mails, one of which even called my dead son Casey a “queer” and a “faggot.”
After all the time Ms. Gresko spent there listening to us it seems like this story was filed with the intent to cloud our issue and undermine the absolute moral authority our protest had in denouncing the loss of innocent life.
We at Peace of the Action Coalition demand that the AP file a new story clarifying the seemingly deliberate obscuring of the facts in the first article and print a retraction in every news outlet that the article dated January 16th appeared.
Cindy Sheehan representing Peace of the Action Coalition
This past weekend, I was privileged to take part in an action with Cindy Sheehan and others to protest the illegal drone bombings the CIA is taking part in. We were non-violent, and respectful to the police that showed up in rather large numbers.
A woman from the Associated Press was there to cover our event. The story that they circulated was completely inaccurate. According to the AP, we were there to protest "the use of unmanned drone aircraft to attack al-Qaida and Taliban targets." Wrong. We were there to protest how innocent civilians were being killed by these unmanned drones.
On September 7th, 2008, after an attack involving both military personnel and drones, the BBC reported that Foreign Minister Shah Memood Qureshi said, "there is no high-value target or known terrorist among the dead." [...] "Only innocent civilians, including women and children, have been targeted." On June 4th, 2009, it was reported that Special Investigator Philip Alston from the U.N. submitted a report to the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland. In it, he said that "the government has failed to track and make public the number of civilian casualties." He called the United States' reliance on pilotless missile-carrying aircraft "increasingly common" and "deeply troubling." On January 2nd, 2010, it was reported that "of the 44 predator strikes carried out by US drones in the tribal areas of Pakistan over the past 12 months, only five were able to hit their actual targets, killing five key Al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders, but at the cost of over 700 innocent civilians."
If you watch all of the videos from the event, you will see many examples of people talking about innocents being killed.
Because of the AP's faulty reporting, several threats, and harassing emails have been sent to Cindy Sheehan. If the Associated Press cares at all about its credibility, it will print a retraction to their story immediately.
Clarification: CIA Protest Story
The Eleventh Day of Every Month
I remember when you left a sign on Pelosi's door.
to going to the most putrid places on earth...the CIA and Dick Cheney's house. All we can say is thanks. We are so sickened by these people and organizations, and their lawless, despicable actions.
Thanks for taking it to the gate, Jon. Fearless.
Cheney is a coward. His fascistic ravings are guilty demeanor.
“On the altar of God, I swear eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson
Nice work Jon. Next time try to include his infamous answer to the question "Do the Orders Still Stand?" which was of course asked of Dick Cheney on 9/11 in the bunker beneath the White House. As I am sure you know, Cheney was directing the US military response to the hijackings and was receiving regular reports on the approach of American Airlines Flight 77 to the Pentagon during its last 50 miles. As reported to the 9/11 Commission by Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, Cheney said yes, the orders still stand, and Flight 77 slammed into the Pentagon without any meaningful response from the military. That Cheney was never questioned about this is a disgrace. The 9/11 Commission let him off the hook totally, which was as much an act of betrayal as Cheney's failure to act.
Toward the end of the video, at first I thought you were part of the gestapo and were angrily reaching into the car window to grab the cell phone/camera out of that woman's hand. Ha! You fooled me.
it's said that a home reflects the owner's heart and soul.
What immediately struck me was the house and property itself. In a heavily wooded area, all the beauty of the forest had been stripped away. The choices of the house's architecture, colors, and landscaping were absolutely barren, stark, and cold.
The reality is as chilling, if not more so, as the fictitious photos in several previous posts.
JAIL IS MORE POWERFUL THAN ARREST
Anyone wishing a copy of Gandhi’s writings about jail should contact me.
My message here is that the American peace movement does not deserve to achieve its goals. I want us to. The innocent people my country slaughters deserve to live, but we peace activists don’t deserve success.
It pains me to have to protest this event, but it is NOT acceptable to suppress discussion of Gandhian style resistance. I have been trying for months to engage Cindy Sheehan on the finer aspects of nonviolence to no avail. Because Cindy is organizing both POTA in March and this anti-drone action today, I choose to make this stand now. I attended this past Wednesday’s presentation with Ray McGovern at Busboys and Poets in DC. I held a sign quietly and raised my hand during Q & A to no avail. Robbie Diesu agreed to let me join the monthly POTA call. He deserves praise for that.
I don’t mind if people I do politics with disagree with me, and I don’t mind deferring to others on important issues, as long as I get a real chance to offer my view of the truth. I still would be VERY hesitant to protest an action if the suppression wasn’t of the ideas of Mohandas K Gandhi.
I am a veteran of the mass direct actions against the Seabrook NH nuclear power station 1977-80. It involved terrible infighting, but in contrast to POTA, all major views were represented. Also, I will never hear me criticize Cindy, or anyone, without giving some praise.
The action Peace of the Action that Cindy has called has the potential to be the most daring protest in decades.
I‘m hesitant to allow it to proceed without showing how it can be stronger.There isn't intrinsically wrong with putting one’s body in the way. However,if the organizers sanction efforts to avoid arrest, IT WILL BE MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO ASSURE NONVIOLENT DISCIPLINE. If on the other hand, POTA were to see its goal as filling the jails, success is much easier to attain.
I’ll bet most people in attendance today do not even believe they are ignoring Gandhi’s ideas.
There are some very impressive people speaking today. I wonder if one of them will agree with me that the people who work at the CIA are to be seen as brothers and sisters, profoundly misguided brothers and sisters, but brothers and sisters nonetheless. Gandhi was actually concerned with the spiritual advancement of his adversaries. You can imagine that this could be too much for most activists. However, if understanding of Gandhian resistance is kept from POTA participants, our most daring activists will never see how they can be more daring.
Please note: from the perspective of the average non-activist citizen, the difference between Gandhian resistance and POTA sanctioned civil resistance is insignificant. Practitioners of nonviolent resistance should know better and make more thoughtful choices.
Practitioners of civil resistance are polite to everyone (no small feat) but try ONLY to appeal to their supporters. Practitioners of Gandhian resistance appeal to neutrals and adversaries as misguided brothers and sisters.
Civil resisters do show up in court when arrested and do serve their time if sentenced, but they believe they should minimize their suffering usually by pleading not guilty and seeking mercy. Gandhian resistance sees value in serving time to touch the hearts of their adversaries.
Civil resisters believe that they deserve to minimize or avoid sentence because their message is a service to the community. This is not as fairly described as holding oneself above the law as those who give phony names or do not appear for trial. Nevertheless, it is closer to holding oneself above the law than Gandhians, who believe that the power of nonviolence has something to do with suffering to touch the hearts of the adversaries rather that simply risking making a personal sacrifice.
Civil resisters resent the time they serve in jail. Gandhian resisters know they are duty bound to serve their time cheerfully, where the issue focused on is not THEIR suffering but the issue at hand.
Civil resisters seek victory rather than truth. I saw those who were arrested with Cindy at the White House in September 2005 say in court that they had not been protesting. A legal ploy was made to claim to be only asserting their first amendment rights. I consider that less than fully truthful. They could exercise those rights lots of places. The feds have rules, which when analyzed can be openly and nonviolently broken. Gandhian resisters use satyagraha which is best defined as holding fast to the truth or putting their whole weight on the truth.
It is important that our resistance minimize the heat and maximize the light. No one, even those who anonymously support our adversaries, and especially those who are neutrals, should be personally afraid of us. Protesting at someone’s house might be done with love, but is harder to achieve than at a public building. Our challenge is moral more than physical. Since strong nonviolence requires sacrifice, we should consider serving time to avoid being lame.
I believe advocates of civil resistance CAN work with advocates of Gandhian resistance. I’ve recently heard Cindy herself assert that POTA does not see itself as being above the law, a very good sign. I’ve also heard Cindy recently say she may have to serve a longer sentence, another excellent sign. There are likely to be fewer adherents to Gandhian resistance than to civil resistance, at least in the beginning, but POTA should make it possible for the most daring form of resistance to arise from its deliberations, even if it arises at some later action.
American peace activists in general have differed from Gandhian approaches for decades. One of the foremost Gandhian advocates, Narayan Desai, son of Mahadev Desai, Gandhi’s secretary, recounts a Vietnam War era experience. He was at a peace event in the US when it was announced someone had gotten a multiyear jail sentence for burning his draft card. Narayan Desai was going to applaud when he was surprised to hear the Americans boo and hiss. He also has recounted that when his father would leave to serve jail time his family would say,” Maybe next time you’ll get a longer sentence.”
Americans love to quote Gandhi while ignoring his real wisdom. Let me leave you with my favorite Gandhi quote,” The satyagrahi enters the jail cell as the bridegroom enters the bridal chamber.”
©David Slesinger 2010
David Slesinger firstname.lastname@example.org
And again, what you did was a disgrace.
Do you have evidence to the contrary?
I have seen what you consider to be "prevented" over the years, and so have other groups when you've threatened to protest them. Please stop David. Participate, don't provoke.
I emailed Cindy last fall when she proposed the POTA action. I asked to speak with her by phone. She has resisted. She told me the wrong time for the first in-person meeting and has prevented me from being part of POTA deliberations.
That Cindy doesn't know who you are, and prefers working with individuals she knows and trusts?
I was arrested at the White House with Cindy and 24 others on 10/26/05. I made my case for going to jail and the next day her post reflected my argument. She quoted Gandhi from the great trial. Here's the link
Unfortunately, since NO peace activist in the US agrees with me, her advisors convinced her to avoid jail.I didn't hold it against her. She was so new to it all. I tried to engage her by email, but she would never respond to anything over a couple of sentences.
It used to be whenever she saw me she hugged me. When I asked to speak by phone to her, I also suggested maybe I could speak with Joshua Smith, who she was organizing with. She said she had lost contact with him. I think that was a lie. He spoke from the stage in Langley. He agreed to take a call from me last night at 10 his time. He didn't pick up or call me back.
It is not offensive that you don't immediately accept my charges of suppression. A more respectful way of addressing my charges of suppression would be to ask questions like you just did, rather than claiming I was not suppressed.
sorry but I can't figure out what you are saying, David.....
I'd be very happy to continue the discussion. My phone and email are included.It is sadly unusual for truth activists to show interest in nonviolence.
I am the founder of DC911truth. We were are odds for a while because they stood against discussion of nonviolence. After a while I realized that the rest of the truth movement felt the same way, so I was being unfair in singling them out
we should have a wide-ranging discussion about non-violent activism.
Consider this a teaching moment.
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
If you will give me you email , I'll notify you.
I gave this talk in Dr King’s home town of Atlanta at the US Social Forum in June of 2007 entitled, “Nonviolent resistance in the US can be practiced with greater strength”
I have the transcript somewhere.
"It is you who are the torch-bearers with respect to that truth.... ...Steel your spines. Inspire your children. Then when the moment is right, rise again...." W PEPPER
Our movement doesn't deserve to achieve 911 truth because we are not courageous enough. I want us to be.
Apathy Supports the Status Quo
I think we citizens need to do what the corporate media is afraid to do, and that is just what Jon Gold and Sheehan did, get in Cheney's face, so to speak. The so called bringer of democracy to Iraq is afraid to meet the people. As far as questions, I'd ask him why it was so important to him to keep his energy task for so secret. I'd ask him what he thought the meaning of conflict of interest is in the context of the energy task force meeting lawsuit going to the Supreme Court and him going hunting with Opus Dei Anton Scalia while the case was before the Supreme Court. I'd ask him about conflict of interest in the context of his relationship with Halliburton and direct awarding contracts and seizing Caspian Sea oil and gas routes and Iraq oil fields.
I think we need to send a message to these cretins that there is no place to hide in this world. Dick Cheney also has a house near Teton Village, in Jackson, Wyoming, the locals know where it is. This would be another good place to march for truth and leave some information papers and placards. I suppose everybody here has already seen the video about the guy yelling at GW Bush in the Pizza Parlor, last week, called him a murderer and was still cussing a streak when he was shown the door by the secret service, that we pay for, by the way. People need to get in the faces of these criminals just like the paparazi gets in the face of celebrities even though they are only guily of being celebrities, not for mass murder and for lying us into war and for stealing natural resources to sell on the global market.
Anybody know where Zalamy Khalizad lives, look up his bio on Wikkipedia, he's central to this 9-11 issue.
Good job Jon.
I agree with all your concerns, and I don't consider calling someone a cretin is nearly as bad a murdering a million people, but that doesn't make calling someone a cretin nonviolent. It doesn't make screaming in anger nonviolent.
The reason the term truther is an unfortunate term is that too many people make sadly ignorant statements. We should be more concerned with the truth.
One could ask Cheney tough questions without including the venom. The reason most 911truth activists wouldn't consider being nonviolent is they are more concerned with hating people that finding the truth.