MIM Notes ***

MIM Notes 279 · April 1, 2003 · Page 1

MIM Notes

April 1, 2003, Nº 279

The Official Newsletter of the Maoist Internationalist Movement (MIM)

Free

INSIDE: What's up with the French? * Under Lock & Key * Una Página en Español...

www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext

STOP IMPERIALIST WAR!

Statement of

principles

regarding the

Iraq War

by the International Minister

March 19, 2003

oday, with the long war against

Iraq just having expanded into

Baghdad with the first missile

attacks after the deadline in Bush's

ultimatum to Iraq, MIM mourns in

advance the loss of life in Iraq. Whether

the United $tates wins in a day or

whether the Iraqi people grind out a war

that turns a five or six digit figure of

aggressor troops into dust, the loss of life

in Iraq is unnecessary. Our species can

do better, but it will take a global

perspective.

No moral grounds

While even the reactionary Pope and

French President Chirac have condemned

this war, it is obvious it has no "moral

grounds," no matter what one's

upbringing. After all, Chirac is from the

same reactionary wing of imperialism as

Bush. Chirac comes from the French

version of the U.$. Republican Party.

The bottom line is that peace in the

world depends on an internationalist

viewpoint's conquering the species. The

kernel of that idea can be expressed in

Christian terms as the "golden rule." It

means placing oneself in the shoes of the

"other guy." As long as the principle of

internationalism applied as a "golden rule"

among nations is ignored, we will be stuck

in "what-goes-around-comes-around"

terrorism and war.

This does not mean we are pacifists. It

means that Bush's violence does not

contribute to internationalist answers.

Rather Bush's violence is partly fear-

mongering panic about weapons of mass

destruction. Yet weapons of mass

destruction are merely a symptom. Bush's

supporters often say "guns don't kill

people; people do." There are reasons

people create weapons of mass

destruction and use them as in Hiroshima

and Nagasaki and Bush has never

addressed the causes of war except by

making them worse.

Violence that prevents violence: a
scientific question

What Bush does is a perfect example

For more coverage of anti-war protests, see pages 4 and 5. An article

discussing France's opposition to the war starts on page 3. For continuing

coverage of the war and anti-war activism, check www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/

agitation/iraq/index.html.

Block Patriot

Act II's

march to

fascism!

hile Bush and his war council

prepare to bomb Iraq, John

Ashcroft's minions have put

together a second Patriot Act -- a laundry

list civil liberties they want to get rid of.

The new law is officially called the

Domestic Security Enhancement Act, and

MIM condemns its fascist goals and calls

on all people to see that it does not become

law.

We only know of the DSEA's existence

because someone leaked it to the press.

The so-called Justice Department said

after the leakage that it would be

"derelict" if it were not "continually

considering anti-terrorism measures." Yet

this same office has yet to give Congress

any report on the first Patriot Act and its

effectiveness in preventing terrorism. Just

as the USA Patriot Act was in the works

before 911, and was made into law with

What does defending Stalin have

to do with opposing war in Iraq?

Aside from the fact that his last public

speech said, "down with the

warmongers," we defend Stalin

because we are for socialism--and

not just when it drops from Heaven.

other questions of war and imperialism.

MIM handed out 500 copies of MIM

Notes.

Note: http://www.thecrimson.com/

article.aspx?ref=346930

Harvard students step

it up against the war

San Francisco-- Around 80,000 people

joined the March 15 anti-war protest here.

The numbers at the rally were lower than

other recent protests, but about 2000

people participated in a "break away"

march (not following the permitted route).

Arrests were far more numerous than at

past rallies with close to 200 people

ending up in jail, including several tourists

and movie goers who did nothing more

than end up on the wrong sidewalk at the

wrong time. San Francisco appears to be

criminalizing the act of protesting the war

outside of the confines of a permitted

march.

At the pre-march rally MIM and RAIL

put up a participatory revolutionary art

display. On an Amerikkkan flag we

sprayed painted "No Imperialist Wars!"

and attached RAIL flyers and stickers

opposing the war in Iraq and imperialist

violence. Many people stopped to look at

and take pictures of the display. We

handed out MIM Notes to everyone who

passed by, explaining that the paper

represents our opinion of Amerikan

imperialism and we invited others to

express their opinions on the Amerikan

flag. We had markers, spray paint, a knife

and other supplies on hand. Improvisations

included burning parts of the flag and an

offer by one protester to wipe his ass with

it.

The revolutionary art project was very

popular. Thousands of people stopped to

read what was written on the flag and

many of them stepped up to express their

anger at the Amerikan system. The

majority of rally participants promoted

pacifist or liberal anti-war sentiments. The

revolutionary art project gave us a chance

to introduce these people to an anti-

imperialist perspective through MIM

Notes while uniting with them in

opposition to this war on Iraq. We also

connected the struggle to an action that

even those who did not want to desecrate

the flag could take: we asked people to

sign a petition defending one of the many

victims of the U.$. terror campaign, Jose

Maria Sison, a Filipino revolutionary

leader in exile in the Netherlands.

Overall our revolutionary art project

succeeded in gaining much attention for

the MIM and RAIL literature table and

interest in MIM Notes while also giving

normally passive rally participants an

opportunity to express their views on

imperialism. But we failed to plan for a

way to clearly demarcate our work as a

project of MIM and RAIL. We did attach

copies of MIM Notes to the trees next to

the flag, but the banner above the flag

only read "revolutionary art" so those who

passed by just taking pictures probably

were not aware of our intention. We did

attempt to remedy this problem by

approaching everyone who noticed the

display to offer them MIM Notes and

explain the purpose of the project.

There were a number of people who

wrote statements on the flag that agree

with MIM and RAIL's revolutionary anti-

imperialism including: "capitalism begets

violence", "notice media manipulation by

Bush administration", "O say can you see,

by the imperialist light, how proudly we

murder", "Bush and his crew, international

terrorists" and several statements in

Arabic that translated into support for the

Palestinian peoples right to self-

determination.

Several who expressed their opinions

on the flag represented anarchist positions

including those who wrote "No govt." But

the largest group we encountered were

those who didn't see imperialism as the

main enemy. These pacifists or liberals

had a wide range of reasons for opposing

the war on Iraq, from religion to

patriotism.

We also saw a lot of signs blaming or

targeting just President Bush, rather than

the system of imperialism that gives him

power. And even worse, many that

implied George W. is evil only because

his father, Bush Sr., raised him that way.

This individualism leads to misplaced

anger and an incorrect focus on the leader

rather than the system that is causing tens

of thousands of people to die daily.

The strong support for pacifism and

religion was bolstered by actor Martin

Sheen's speech. His introduction was

greeted with loud cheers and a standing

ovation by the mostly seated crowd. He

delivered something of a sermon, calling

on god to grant the activists the power to

stand peacefully in opposition to the war

and praying for strength. During each

pause the crowd continued to cheer.

Anticipating the photographic attention,

and also knowing that police surveillance

at rallies is strong, a few of the MIM and

RAIL activists had their faces covered.

Several people stopped to ask us why we

did this and greeted our explanation that

we intended to make it harder for the

police to repress revolutionaries, with

understanding and support.

The March 12 issue of the San

Francisco Bay Guardian (a local weekly

newspaper) ran an article on undercover

cops monitoring peace protesters. At

recent anti-war rallies, "A group of four

officers assigned to the Violent Crimes

Task Force--a unit that normally handles

gang killings--carried out the undercover

operations. Dressed as protesters, the

squad videotaped the demonstrations and

marched along Market Street in the large

antiwar parades as well as in the smaller,

riotous `breakaway' marches. They also

made a handful of arrests for vandalism."

The article goes on to explain: "The

SFPD established strict guidelines on

surveillance after S.F. cop Tom Gerard,

a former Central Intelligence Agency

operative, was caught spying on Bay Area

leftists in 1992. Working with the Anti-

Defamation League, Gerard had compiled

dossiers on some 7,000 radicals.

"According to the SFPD's spying rules,

which remain in place today, police must

receive written permission from the

MIM and RAIL organize art against the war

`Commanding Officer of the Special

Investigations Division, Deputy Chief of

Investigations and the Chief of Police'

before mounting a surveillance operation.

In the files we reviewed there's no

mention of the appropriate command staff

being involved in the recent undercover

operations. "

Activists should know that it doesn't

matter if the police have policies

supposedly governing their spy

operations. The police and FBI have a

long history of undercover surveillance

and worse including infiltration, disruption

and violence, against anti-imperialist

activists. We can make it harder for them

by disguising ourselves at public events,

refusing to give out unnecessary persynal

information to other people (including our

real names), and taking care using our

phones and internet connections. We

should not let fear keep us from

organizing, but we need to be realistic

about the power the government has and

the existence of spying and

counterintelligence operations.

Protestors make their
opinion of "Old Glory"
known at MIM and RAIL's
revolutionary art exhibit.

MIM Notes 279 · April 1, 2003 · Page 5

Los Angeles

Despite the pouring rain, MIM

distributed more than 300 copies of MIM

Notes with anti-war headlines and built

opposition to the Patriot Act II at a March

15 rally against Amerika's war in Iraq in

Los Angeles. More than 70 people signed

our petition against John Ashcroft's latest

proposed "anti-terror" legislation.

Patriot II (see article page 1) is a bold

fascist power-grab by Ashcroft & co.,

and it is urgent that we shut it down before

the congress has a chance to make it into

law. Demonstrators who had heard of

Patriot Act II (a.k.a. the Domestic

Security Enhancement Act) were grateful

that MIM was offering a way to oppose

it in action. But at least half of the people

MIM spoke with had not heard of the

new Patriot Act before. This is no surprise,

as only a handful of major U.$.

newspapers have covered the story since

someone leaked a copy of the act on

February 7, and most of those papers only

printed one story on it.

A Libertarian at the table next to MIM's

commented that it's a good thing Patriot

II has not yet been introduced in Congress

because as long as it's not on the floor it

can't be voted into law. But this is cold

comfort in the face of the administration's

highly secretive tactics in its "War on

Terror." The USA Patriot Act passed

within hours and days of its introduction

in the two houses of congress--not even

enough time for the congresspeople to

read what they were voting for, let alone

for the public to chime in on the debate.

Revolutionaries, civil libertarians and the

oppressed must spread opposition to the

Patriot Act II now. Our libertarian

neighbor and several other rally-goers

asked for copies of our anti-Patriot II

petition. The rights this legislation would

take away are vital to our ability to

organize.

Among other things, the Patriot Act II

would give the executive branch power

to make secret arrests, strip Amerikan

citizenship from anyone who supports

even the lawful activities of so-called

"terrorist" organizations, spy on religious

and other non-criminal groups, view credit

reports without consent or judicial review,

and arrest and extradite citizens and non-

citizens alike to countries with which the

united snakes has no extradition treaties

and without regard for those countries

humyn rights records. Patriot II would

further eliminate checks and balances in

government by barring the courts from

oversight on warrants and wiretaps and

on the enactment of the law overall, and

by voiding existing consent decrees that

tolerate the Bush administration, and

believe it is legitimate to be in a system

where they alternate power with

warmongers attempting to rule the whole

world instead of supporting global majority

rule. In contrast, we believe it is ghastly

to tolerate and accept Bush today--and

for this, the Amerikkkan population, not

just the rulers are to blame.

What the movement inside u.$. borders

needs to understand is that making

arguments that would work in the

Democratic Party may help one obtain

political office, but they do nothing toward

peace. Getting elected in the united $tates

and peace are two separate questions.

What is necessary for peace is in fact

unpopular in the united $tates, but we

cannot change the prerequisites for peace

simply because Amerikkkans are too

busy reading Marie Claire and watching

NakedNews.com to support a real anti-

war movement in vast numbers. We have

to tell it like it is and hope for change, just

the way a minority of anti-Nazi Germans

had to tell it like it is while gaining the

support of less than 10% of the population

during World War II. Germans in the

1940s should not have supported more

moderate Nazis instead of Hitler as a

matter of being "realistic."

Counter-demonstrators

There were a few counter-

demonstrators scattered throughout--a

handful, plus the usual tent for the pro-

war speeches. As the anti-war

demonstration wound down, a bellicose

white male drove up in a car, opened his

window and yelled "we're going to war.

Deal with it!" He was probably the

diplomat Bush sent to France.

The counter-demonstrators focus on

"supporting our troops." Lesson number

one in peace throughout the world has to

be internationalism. If you want peace,

then "our troops" cannot be any more

important than "their troops." At least

since when the united $tates dropped two

atomic bombs on Japan in 1945, the whole

idea that one side of war could win without

taking a risk of being attacked back with

devastating weapons of mass destruction

has been out-dated. What goes around

comes around, so if we cause problems

for "their troops" we are only "asking for

it" ourselves. In this war, both groups of

troops are pawns being sacrificed for

bourgeois rulers.

We are tired of these conservative

counter-demonstrators. We live every

day under threat of terrorism, because

they and their rulers are too narrow-

minded to address the causes of terrorism,

both by the united $tates and lesser

terrorists in the world. Then these

backward counter-demonstrators want us

to applaud their sending troops abroad

where they are "under threat" and end

up stirring up more "terrorism" of

different sorts--including legitimate

responses like George Washington's.

These hypocrites claiming to be oh-so

patriotic ought to know that if George

Washington used violence against

colonialism, then so too, we might expect

MIM petitions against Patriot Act at L.A. rally

require police (including the Feds) to show

that they are acting within the u.$.

constitution.

Tens of thousands showed up for the

march, but by rally time the crowd had

dwindled a lot as the less energetic or

those who came unprepared for the

drenching rainstorm went home. The

crowd was pretty friendly to MIM Notes,

and as we handed out papers with

headlines "Amerika marches toward War

for Oil!" and "Authority-lovers write

Bush a blank check for War on Iraq" it

was easy to see we were there carrying

the anti-imperialist banner.

One womyn said it was "inappropriate"

to be handing out MIM Notes, and that

this demonstration was not about

"Chinese communism" but about opposing

a war on Iraq. This is rank sectarianism,

when a demonstrator at an anti-war rally

can ignore front-page articles against the

coming war in Iraq and the ongoing wars

against "terrorism" and the rest of the

Third World to say it is wrong to be

distributing these articles in a Maoist

newspaper. You would think someone

telling MIM to get lost with its newspaper

would be distributing their own

newspaper twice as big and with more

material against the war. In fact even from

someone doing more and better work than

MIM, this would be sectarian, but at least

with some work to back it up this claim

would be more than nihilist posturing. It

should be embarrassing to the anti-war

liberals that MIM has to point out that if

anti-war organizing is your priority, you

should be evaluating your friends by their

agitation against the war!

A telephone poll on March 17--taken

right after Bush's ultimatum to Saddam

Hussein to leave Iraq with his sons or be

bombed -- found that 31 percent of

Amerikans were ITAL relieved END at

the prospect of war within the next few

days. 68 percent said the U.$. did all it

could to avert war through diplomatic

channels, and 66 percent support Bush's

decision -- though one in five of this last

group is not convinced going to war is

the right thing to do.(1) That's right, more

than one of every eight Amerikans

surveyed said they are okay with sending

the army to destroy homes, further wreck

the Iraq economy, make more Iraqis

refugees and kill people because George

Bush says so. In a political climate like

this, MIM wants to see as much anti-war

activism out of as many quarters as

possible.

Notes: http://www.cnn.com/2003/

ALLPOLITICS/03/18/sprj.irq.bush.poll/

index.htm

the Iraqis to. Until we grant that the whole

world has learned the lesson of George

Washington, we are going to stay stuck

in a pattern of imperialist violence. The

safety of troops abroad is NOT a higher

priority than our safety at home or the

safety of others abroad--whether

Amerikkkan or not. We should not be

manipulated just because the rulers have

succeeded in sending troops already.

Quality of the anti-war movement

The anti-war movement lost not its size

but its quality, because of complacency

of thought and action. Even a large

portion of demonstrators are indifferent

to politics. We see them turning down

leaflets from people and also offering

reasons against war that demonstrate a

lack of political development.

The anti-Bush sentiment in the rallies

comes from the least reliable sectors of

the anti-war movement. Since Democrats

in Congress voted for the war, there is

really no reason to be hearing specifically

anti-Bush sentiment except for that sector

of the movement that just wants Bush to

do a better job making war by having

more military allies and using diplomacy

even more in order to further disarm Iraq

before attacking it.

A 48-year-old ex-Marine held aloft a

huge "Fuck Bush" poster/banner right to

the end of the rally. A teenage youth

confronted him and asked for "respect"

for Bush, while the ex-Marine equally

aggressively asked for respect for

someone who already served his country.

We gathered from the exchange and the

effort that went into the banner, that this

ex-Marine was not one of those tepid anti-

war demonstrators who will bail out of

the anti-war movement when Senator

Kerry continues the war as the next

president. There is definitely a need for

more aggressive types like this one to join

the anti-war movement.

As one speaker noted, in the 1970s,

Bush (and his many ardent war backers)

did not do service in Vietnam. In the

National Guard where even there his

service was under question, Bush was

"busy protecting the skies" "against the

Viet Cong air force." That was a joke,

because the Vietnamese never sent any

air force to attack the United $tates.

The reality is that veterans are on both

sides of this conflict and even troops are

divided into pro-war and anti-war camps.

Hence, the whole question of "respect"

posed by our teenage junior Republican

is misplaced. How to get along with the

rest of the world and the impact of this

war are scientific questions. If an ex-

Marine says this war will only cause more

terrorism, he is not any more or less

correct than a gay millionaire who never

served in the military when he says this

war will only cause more terrorism. If

two people are saying exactly the same

thing, one is not more correct because he

once served the united $tates in battle.

Notes:

1. http://www.internationalanswer.org/

news/update/031503m15rpt.html http://

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/

articles/A30902-2003Mar15.html

2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/

wp-dyn/articles/A42660-2003Mar17.html

DC Rally

Continued from page 1...

MIM Notes 279 · April 1, 2003 · Page 6

Militarism is war-mongering or the

advocacy of war or actual carrying out

of war or its preparations.

While true pacifists condemn all

violence as equally repugnant, we

Maoists do not consider self-defense

or the violence of oppressed nations

against imperialism to be militarism.

Militarism is mostly caused by

imperialism at this time. Imperialism

is the highest stage of capitalism--

seen in countries like the United

$tates, England and France.

Under capitalism, capitalists often

profit from war or its preparations.

Yet, it is the proletariat that does the

dying in the wars. The proletariat

wants a system in which people do not

have self-interest on the side of war-

profiteering or war for imperialism.

Militarism is one of the most

important reasons to overthrow

capitalism. It even infects oppressed

nations and causes them to fight each

other.

It is important not to let capitalists

risk our lives in their ideas about war

and peace or the environment. They

have already had two world wars

admitted by themselves in the last 100

years and they are conducting a third

right now against the Third World.

Even a one percent annual chance of

nuclear war destruction caused by

capitalist aggressiveness or "greed" as

the people call it should not be tolerated

by the proletariat. After playing

Russian Roulette (in which the bullet

chamber is different each time and not

related at all to the one that came up in

previous spins) with 100 chambers and

one bullet, the chance of survival is

only 60.5% after 50 turns. In other

words, a seemingly small one percent

annual chance of world war means

eventual doom. After 100 years or turns

of Russian Roulette, the chances of

survival are only 36.6%. After 200

years, survival has only a 13.4%

chance.

What is militarism?

of reactionary repressive violence. It

whips up a furor over a symptom and

claims to tidy up after the problem.

Fascism can also be seen as one huge

effort to tidy up the problems created by

capitalism, but fascism cannot succeed

because it cannot let itself know the

sources of its own existence. In contrast,

Abe Lincoln also used repressive

violence, but Lincoln's violence ended up

being progressive repressive violence,

because Lincoln had a plan to eliminate

slavery and other causes of conflict.

Lincoln used violence against a cause of

violence. Bush uses violence that will only

inflame the world's people more. People

who understand this will readily

understand how it is that Stalin violently

repressed so many people but still the life

expectancy of his people doubled. As a

reactionary, Bush has no plan or

capability to use violence to reduce

violence. So absent is a plan to reduce

violence that many have concluded the

real cause of the war is "blood for oil."

When it comes to questions of

international relations and peace, what is

"moral" is what tends to promote species

survival. If I$rael were a "moral" actor,

we would have seen peace in the Middle

East a long time ago, given that I$rael is

much stronger militarily than its existing

and potential enemies in a short-run

conventional sense. Likewise, Bush's

approach to turn the whole Third World

into one giant West Bank cannot succeed

anymore than I$rael's approach.

At first glance the question of war and

peace may seem to divide neatly into

moral and tactical questions. That is

wrong. I$rael is not at peace: that is a

scientific fact. The United $tates spends

more money on the military than the rest

of the world combined and it has the

world's largest economy; yet the United

$tates is subject to terrorist attack from

people who could pick easier targets if

they were opportunist. These are also

scientific facts and they indicate

something about the approach of I$rael

and the United $tates.

Bush tries to address moral concerns

by saying Uncle $am will try to make the

war as short as possible and leave Iraq in

a happy democracy better off than it was

before the war. People with a knowledge

of Iraq or any Third World people's love

of self-determination know why the

United $tates is hated there. It may seem

to be a "tactical" question as to whether

Bush has the capability to bring about

"democracy" in Iraq, but in fact, moral

and tactical (instrumental) questions are

merged. We often hear that ideological

dispute is messier than scientific dispute,

but in this case, the morality of "world

peace" is uncontroversial. The science

of how to bring that about is controversial.

Mourning the death of innocent Iraqis

The Iraqi people are a victim of the

most horrific imperialist power in

history--the United $tates. What Iraqis

seek is self-determination, which is a

natural and healthy motive that George

Washington pursued. That is why the

nationalism of the Iraqi people cannot be

equated with the twisted nationalism of

overfed Amerikkkans who oppose

"French fries" and use that as a

justification to kill Iraqis.

We also mourn those of the U.$. troops

who are too young and foolish to

understand world affairs and why they

die in Iraq--and of course, already some

have died in training for this war.

However, unlike the Iraqis, we can say

that the u.$. troops did at least have a

chance to avoid their fate. Whether they

were watching too much nakednews.com

(which is the leading news website in the

male 18-34 age group) to pay attention to

political matters or whether they read too

many romantic tales of military adventure,

the U.$. troops had the economic

opportunity to educate themselves better

and push their country away from

aggression, but they failed.

Although there is almost no limit to

humyn economic capabilities and growth,

the population of the United $tates is too

busy reading trashy romance novels and

playing video games to consider economic

cooperation that would bring global peace.

Again and again, the Amerikkkan and

I$raeli rulers say that killing Third World

people is the solution to the problem. They

succeed in killing many people including

their own in "friendly fire" while failing

to bring "democracy," peace and

economic cooperation.

In every way, the Amerikan rulers and

the 70% of the Amerikan public that

backs them (1) are "asking for it." It's

clear that Amerikkkans respect nothing

but force--not international law, not the

treaties they signed, not the United

Nations and not the "humyn rights" they

often speak of. The trouble is that these

war-mongers impose their terrorism-

generating system on the rest of us in

North Amerika. Vice-President Bush

under Reagan armed and trained Bin

Laden to fight the Soviet Union. Then the

war-mongering majority waged a war on

Iraq and caused Bin Laden to start

attacking the United $tates; yet the

Amerikkkans don't get it to this day. Now

they want another war on Iraq--and get

this--because of a link of Iraq to

terrorism! No shit, Sherlocks: you created

it!

The stupidity does not end there. Vice-

President Cheney said on March 16th

(and subsequently backed by Bush) that

Iraq has nukes; yet Cheney is exactly the

one who has been pushing for war on

Iraq all along.(2) Talk about asking for it!

The fact is that every single humyn-being

on this planet lives at the tolerance of

other humyn-beings, and this becomes

more true the smaller the planet gets. The

sooner we get that through our skulls, the

better off we will all be.

While some companies make money

selling bombs, we of the U.$.-based

peace movement live under the constant

threat of war and terrorism in retaliation

for what the Amerikan majority did. We

of the minority are tired of their wars for

oil, their backing of I$raeli massacres of

Palestinians every day, their profiteering

on weapons and everything else that

deprives us of a non-negotiable right to

live in peace without terrorism. If the U.$.

imperialist majority wants to change things

("regime change") in Iraq, it can move

there. In democracy, the majority only

determines what happens among those

who voted, not in countries thousands of

miles away. If the Amerikan knucklehead

yahoos want "regime change" in Iraq,

they can move to Baghdad.

We the peace-loving minority have a

non-negotiable right to be free of the

violence caused by the majority's desire

to remake the world in the image of

Ronald McDonald. If they want a war to

Statement of principles regarding the Iraq War

remove the veil from Afghanistan's

wimmin, and they think they know how

to do it, the Amerikkkans should move

there. If Amerikkkans don't want Kim

Jong-il to produce nuclear weapons for

profit, we'd suggest that they get out there

and bid higher for those weapons than

other bidders, because there is no other

logic within the capitalist system.

Whatever these Amerikkkans want to do,

they should do it without endangering

anyone else's non-negotiable rights to

security.

Notes:

1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/

wp-dyn/articles/A52020-2003Mar19.html

2. http://www.msnbc.com/news/

886806.asp; see also Reuters published

Mar 17 2003. http://

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/

articles/A42837-2003Mar17.html

Continued from page 1...

San Francisco protestors blocked streets March 15 (MIM Photo).

MIM Notes 279 · April 1, 2003 · Page 7

oppression in Eastern Europe represents

the worst "false consciousness" on the

planet with proletarians killing proletarians

and imagining that Hitler was only as bad

or even better than Stalin. At all costs,

the Eastern European people need to

obtain a bigger perspective.

In the 1960s, the Western bourgeoisie

blamed all evil on Stalin and continued

that practice right up to the present

decade, as an excuse for any failure in

Russia and the neighboring republics.

Today, if something good happens in the

former Soviet Union, we can be sure to

hear the propagandists credit capitalism,

but if anything bad happens, the mention

of Stalin's name is sure to follow;

although, he has been dead 50 years. That

is a product of the Cold War, as is the

ethnic cleansing in ex-Yugoslavia-- an

event that occurred thanks to a loss of

Stalin's approach in the region, especially

Yugoslavia where Tito abandoned Stalin

after World War II and implemented

"local control" economically which led to

local chauvinism and genocide in one of

the clearest examples of how the relations

of production affect the culture and

politics in society.

The Russian Maoist Party has recently

pointed out that Stalin is still relevant

today, not least of all because his last

public speech said, "down with the

warmongers." In his last years of life,

Stalin opposed capitalist militarism and the

decline of individual liberties in the West.

We would also like to explain why we

seek to keep what many see as an

albatross around our necks, because

people ask so often. We could defend

individual liberties and oppose militarism

without invoking Stalin's name our critics

would say. Invoking his name only kills

our cause against militarism and for

individual liberties they say.

Today, defending Stalin does not reflect

any obsession with any particular detail

of history. We can say that none of

MIM's founders had any experience living

under Stalin, and MIM holds no nostalgia

for him the way tens of millions do in the

ex-Soviet Union today.

As with any other historical period or

figure, there will be those who become

involved as a matter of fetishism. There

are countless Trotskyist and ultra-left

Marxist groups saying History basically

ended in defeat in the 1920s. That is what

interests them, the 1920s and the first

socialist revolution--and that's pretty

much it.

While history is of life-and-death

importance, we are not history buffs. We

do not look into history merely to stimulate

our brains or because we like one

particular idea or leader.

The real meaning of defending Stalin is

that we are for socialism, not just when it

drops from Heaven, not when the people

simultaneously and spontaneously realize

the virtues of socialism and not only when

there is no repression or violence. The

vilification of Stalin is very much akin to

the vilification of Abe Lincoln during the

U.S. Civil War, which was a most ugly

but necessary thing.

There is a vast petty-bourgeois flirtation

with socialism. Hardly anyone opposes

communism "in theory" as the colloquial

phrase goes. The trouble is that the half-

hearted support of socialism is what kills

it today and provides a camouflage for

imperialism, which generates social-

democratic reforms in the imperialist

countries while imposing violent super-

exploitation in the Third World.

We defend Stalin, because we know

Stalin did not invent the troubles of our

species in getting to socialism. It took a

war to end slavery in the united $tates

less than 150 years ago. How can any

humyn then claim that what Stalin did was

so extraordinarily repressive and

unnecessary? The Russian slaves fought

Napoleon less than 200 years ago for the

right to remain slaves while Napoleon

offered freedom for the slaves and an

advance into capitalism. Obviously if 200

years ago Russian slaves fought a major

war against Napoleon and did not gain

their freedom by so doing, the humyn

species is less than perfect, less than

Divinely placed. The thousands of years

of struggle against slavery is a tell-tale

sign that anyone saying that advance is

easy or a matter of spontaneous

Enlightenment screwed up by occasional

bad individuals like Stalin does not live

much in this world.

Yes, of course it is possible to build

socialism in such a way as to fail and go

farther backward than capitalism. There

is no factual basis for saying that is true

in Stalin's case. Stalin's critics often talk

about Stalin as if he were a relatively

backward political leader of his time. Quite

the contrary, Stalin stood alone against

fascism as a leader of state until Hitler

invaded Poland in 1939. We need only

recall Hitler, Mussolini, Chamberlain and

Quisling to know that political leaders

were much worse than Stalin, who stood

as a shining example of a leader of state.

Others talk about Stalin as if communist

leaders were to blame for all humyn evils.

There are many calling themselves

communist in this boat. Most recently,

there is a publication unrelated to us titled

"Internationalist Notes" that just arose in

the imperialist countries. It has a less than

one and a half page platform which uses

the words "not," "no" and "nor" 18 times

in addition to "enemy" and "against"

several times. Yet the platform has not

much to say for the accomplishments of

the movements it does defend.

"Internationalist Notes" upholds the

Russian Revolution from 1917 to 1918,

but otherwise it sees all revolutionary

progress as crushed in the 20th century.

In other words, there is nothing that

"Internationalist Notes" upholds worth

speaking of, only two years of revolution

in one country. These ultra-leftists go on

and on how a few individuals like Lenin

and Stalin crushed all the good progress

happening. They have accepted a

bourgeois idealist view of history in which

a few individuals have that kind of power

to destroy progress instead of realizing

that Lenin, Stalin and Mao are the best

leaders of state the masses produced in

the 20th century. These idealists criticize

reality from the vantage point of an idea

instead of showing realities created by

humyns that were possible and better than

what humyns did do.

The "Internationalist Notes" like many

ultra-leftists and anarchists believe they

are criticizing Lenin, Stalin and Mao in

this fashion. Yet, Stalin and Mao doubled

the life expectancies of their people

despite all their repressions. That is the

concrete reality and it compares favorably

with other realities if not the pre-formed

ideas in the idealists' religiously infected

minds. The Bordigaists, council-

communists and other ultra-leftists cannot

point to anything that they support or that

their political movement has accomplished

in the last century other than criticizing

the most advanced pole that actually

exists. Their method is the same as that

of the Protestant sects: invent an idea that

sounds most attractive and then divide

over it. In contrast, scientific communism

says that we can only put forward that

which has proved possible. We select that

which was most advanced in humyn

history--not from our imaginations or

powers of fantasy.

Countless idealists misunderstand Stalin

and science itself on this point saying that

change requires something "new."

Implicit in their view is that history is not

full of change. That's why something

"new," namely their ideas are necessary

they say. In fact, the idea that new ideas

will lead past a history of non-change is

not new and has existed for thousands of

years. [...]

The difference between a communist

scientist and a dogmatist is that we

scientists work with reality while the non-

Marxist anarchists, ultra-left communists,

Trotskyists etc. simply ASSUME that a

better reality is possible than what Mao,

Stalin etc. brought. Such an assumption

is no different than religion. To be a

scientist, you need to show IN REALITY,

where something was better. The medical

researcher does not say s/he can imagine

a vaccine that would cure a disease and

win the Nobel prize. S/he invents the

vaccine, proves it works and wins the

Nobel Prize. The point is not saying I can

imagine better drugs than we have now!

Such imagination serves its purpose in

poetry and songs, not political analysis.

If the humyn-being were a perfect

animal, do you think it would have taken

thousands of years to put slavery on the

defensive like it is today? Do you think

the United $tates would have required the

bloodiest civil war that it had? The

humyn-being is fucked up and had to have

slavery beaten out of him/her. Such a war

is ALWAYS an authoritarian act--by

definition.

The complete version of this

statement, which includes debate with

anarchist critics of MIM, can be found

at www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/im/

stalin50th.html.

Notes:

1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/

europe/2665855.stm

2.http://www.signonsandiego.com/

sports/20030115-1353-ski-kostelic-

comments.html See also the FAQ on

Stalin

What it means to defend Stalin today

We defend Stalin,
because we know
Stalin did not invent
the troubles of our
species in getting to
socialism.

Continued from page 3...

Today defending
Stalin does not
reflect any
obsession with any
particular detail of
history.

The real meaning of
defending Stalin is
that we are for
socialism, not just
when it drops from
Heaven, not when
the people
simultaneously and
spontaneously
realize the virtues of
socialism and not
only when there is
no repression or
violence.

MIM Notes 279 · April 1, 2003 · Page 8

Princeton security

disallows MIM

Notes

Princeton, New Jewsey

On March 10th, Princeton University

security stopped MIM Notes distribution.

"Are you students?" the security guard

asked. "This is private property. You

cannot do that here." The guard appeared

within minutes of distribution. Protecting

students against free newspapers is so

important that it was necessary to send a

guard in a car.

Last MIM checked, most of

Amerikkka is private property. If there is

no "free speech" on private property

where thousands of people pass through,

there is no "free speech" in most of

Amerikkka for that reason alone.

Just for additional irony, MIM Notes

distributors were standing outside an old

Princeton building dedicated to an

American "who fought for free speech."

Maybe Princeton ought to read some of

the plaques on the buildings there.

Princeton University received

$146,396,000 from government grants

and contracts in 1999 according to the

Princeton Treasurer's Office reports. Yet

Princeton feels it has the right to stop

certain taxpayers from handing out free

papers.

We say "certain taxpayers," because

while Princeton stopped us, we did find

credit card and shopping brochures

available. Apparently American Express

is enrolled at Princeton.

years, see MIM Notes 261). Needless to

say, Chirac's newly found love of true

"free trade" went over well in Africa in

a recent conference, where he admitted

that the West was subsidizing its own food

exports while punishing Africa through

the IMF whenever it tried to do the

same.(3)

Chirac's song about Europe as a power

with equal weight to the united $tates is

an old French idea around since the 1960s.

Hence, the split with Uncle $am at this

moment was a long time coming, if we

take the French idea of why it is happening

seriously.

As the events with Iraq unfold, the U.$.

dollar has reached a low against the

European currency called the "euro." As

MIM Notes 266 reported previously, Arab

dollars may be a big reason for the

advance of the euro.

Along with the meetings with Africans

and the influx of Arab money, there is

also the matter of the Eastern Europeans.

Chirac pointed out the obvious when he

said that the Eastern European countries

missed a chance to "shut up" when the

united $tates came calling for support for

war.

The Eastern European countries are in

the process of admission to the European

Union. Once accepted, members have the

right to cross borders and use the same

currency, much the way Amerikkkans do

in all states of the united $tates. MIM

shares Chirac's astonishment that

countries from Poland to Bulgaria sided

with the united $tates on Iraq and took

the chance of offending France and

Germany with such economic

enticements right in front of them. The

Eastern European move to side with the

united $tates says one of two very

unflattering things: 1) the Eastern

European bourgeoisie is not bright enough

to perceive who is offering a better

economic deal, the United $tates or

Europe 2) the Eastern Europeans think

that the united $tates is so much more

dynamic than Europe that investment

from thousands of miles away will be

more valuable than being able to cross

borders within the European Union.

Of course, the Eastern European rulers

may secretly think that U.$. military

support through NATO is more important

than joining the European Union! Such

an attitude would stem from an old fear

of Russia on its borders. The Eastern

European countries may also think that

because England and Spain support the

united $tates, they may also do it. In any

case, we can be sure that the alliances

have nothing to do with democracy,

because as in countries other than the

united $tates, England and I$rael, more

than 80% of the population in Eastern

Europe opposes war with Iraq too--which

comes as no surprise to MIM, because

France is serious about multi-polar world,

but French economic ties to U.$. are huge

most countries in the world do not have

crusty labor aristocracies like England and

I$rael.

CBS News reported, "In Bulgaria, a

February poll showed 19 percent

`sympathize with the U.S. and allies.' 10

percent sympathize with Iraq and 55

percent sympathize with neither. 64

percent fear terrorist attacks if Bulgaria

supports the U.S.

"In Latvia, 81 percent were opposed

to military action in Iraq.

"In Hungary, a Gallup poll showed 82

percent oppose military action `under any

circumstance.' In the Czech Republic, 67

percent are against military action.

"Public opinion in Poland is perhaps the

most pro-American. Fifty-two per cent

say Poland should back the U.S.

politically, but 63 percent oppose sending

Polish troops to help."(4)

The Eastern European case is not the

same as the Turkish case, where 94% of

the public opposes war, but the

parliament's plurality still voted for it in

another example why "majority rule" is a

bunch of bullshit in the capitalist world.

Turkey uses the united $tates to push

Turkey into the European Union, as an

advocate so to speak. In contrast, the

Eastern Europeans have pissed off

Chirac and have leaned on the united

$tates to do so. Turkey clamors to get in

to the European Union while the Eastern

Europeans take it for granted.

Aside from the issue of Africans, Turks

and Eastern Europeans--the big unstated

bloc would involve any Arab state truly

wishing to get out from under the u.$.

thumb. If for example Saudi Arabia would

kick out U.$. business in favor of Europe,

the reasons for a trade bloc become at

least somewhat more discernible. It

would still remain a question with the

economic ties amongst the imperialists as

they are whether oil alone is enough

reason to form a bloc and have tariffs go

up between the blocs so that countries

favor other countries in their own bloc

when it comes to trade. We can imagine

that some imperialists might have differing

views on that question and not a fully

scientific outlook on global trade. After

all, it again is a matter of business

competition and whoever grabs the ear

of these politicians such as Chirac and

Schroeder.

Bush has already warned France and

Russia that a vote against the Iraq

resolution would cause long-term damage

to diplomatic relations. When we see the

various sides raise tariffs against each

other in a huff, then we will know that

new trade blocs have formed, now that

the old Soviet trade bloc is out of business.

Henry Kissinger (Nixon's Secretary of

State and war criminal) and Tony Blair

(the prime minister of England) have

Continued from page 3...

criticized Europe for going down the road

that appears to open a new global balance

of power game.(5) Meanwhile ex-

president Jimmy Carter's anti-communist

in the cabinet, Zbigniew Brzezinski has

said that the united $tates has never been

so isolated since 1945.(6) That certainly

sounds like trade blocs and tariff

increases are in the offing.

Notes:

1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/

wp-dyn/articles/A48123-2003Mar5.html

2. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/

2818477.stm

3. The British imperialist mouthpiece

BBC finally admitted the decades-old

practice as well while pointing out that

the imperialists agreed in principle to do

something to cut subsidies to imperialist

country companies while failing to

achieve anything yet. http://

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2824725.stm

4. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/

2 0 0 3 / 0 3 / 0 6 / o p i n i o n / m e y e r /

main543005.shtml

5. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/

06/international/europe/06ASSE.html

6. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/

04/international/middleeast/04ASSE.html

San Francisco protestors: No business as usual March 15.

MIM Notes 279 · April 1, 2003 · Page 9

Congress shut down for the anthrax scare,

this new draft law has been kicking

around for months while Ashcroft's staff

told Congress members that it did not

exist.

Patriot Act II alarms us, as the same

people putting it forward are the ones who

failed to prevent 9/11. Many of the powers

that would be granted in Patriot II have

been used in the past and demonstrably

failed to make Amerika any safer. Ben

Franklin pointed out that "those who

would give up liberty for security deserve

neither." And Democratic Party

congresspersyn Jerrold Nadler (NY) has

called Patriot II "little more than the

institution of a police state."(1)

Before 911, Denver police were nailed

for spying on the American Friends

Service Committee, the Nobel Peace

Prize-winning Quaker organization.(2)

And throughout the 1960s and 1970s, the

FBI conducted a war of wiretaps,

infiltration and provocation against

oppressed nation revolutionaries and such

firebrands as Martin Luther King, Jr. and

prevented not one incident of violence

including the Kennedy assassination.

These police actions were illegal when

they took place. Now the Patriot Acts

are doing away with past safeguards --

placing the police and the federal spy

organizations above the courts and beyond

the reach of law.

The new act includes scores of

Block Patriot Act II's march to fascism!

Continued from page 1...

horrifying provisions, taking us back

before the Magna Carta imposed limits

on executive power. As in the first Patriot

Act, many provisions could be used in

regular criminal cases. And more than in

2001, much of the Patriot Act II is aimed

directly at political activists. Among other

things, the "Domestic Security

Enhancement Act" would:

* quash habeas corpus and fair trial

rights by authorizing secret arrests

including those of material witnesses who

are not charged with a crime, denying the

right to sue for information on detainees

under FOIA,(3) and preventing defense

attorneys from challenging use of secret

evidence;

* end freedoms of association and

assembly and criminalize basic political

activism by stripping American citizenship

from anyone who supports even the

lawful activities of organizations the

administration calls "terrorist," making it

terrorism to engage in potentially

dangerous civil disobedience like that

taken up to stop U.$. bombings in Vieques

(even when the potential danger is only

to the demonstrators themselves), and

making it legal to spy on religious and

other non-criminal groups;

* eliminate privacy by further reducing

the role of courts in overseeing search

and wiretap warrants, creating a DNA

database of American citizens who have

not been convicted of crimes, making

credit reports available to law

enforcement without consent or judicial

review, creating a new category of

"domestic security surveillance" for

terrorism investigations with looser

standards than criminal investigations,

encouraging businesses (like your cable

company and your ISP) to spy on their

customers by immunizing them for any

crimes they commit when they do it, and

requiring bookstores and libraries to turn

over records of their customers' reading

habits upon request by investigators,

without a warrant;

* target immigrants by opening visa files

to local police,(4) providing for extended

jail terms for common immigration

offenses, allowing summary deportation,

and deporting people to any country in

the world, including those with no

functioning government;

* and finally, Patriot Act II would

enhance Amerika's role as an

international police state by permitting

arrests and extraditions of citizens and

non-citizens alike to countries with which

the united snakes has no treaties and

without regard for humyn rights.(2) Had

this last provision been in effect in the

Twentieth Century, Amerika would have

been deporting Armenians to Turkey

during the genocide, Jews to Nazi

Germany, and Blacks to Apartheid South

Africa.

Amerika cannot make its people safe

because it cannot change its own nature.

Its rapacious brutality has made the united

snakes the sworn enemy of the world's

people, who respond with violence -- the

only response this country understands.

Gutting the first, fourth, fifth, sixth and

eighth amendments will not protect this

country from the wrath of those who

have suffered its assaults. It will only lay

bare the hollowness of Amerika's claim

to democracy and right. The only chance

for safety is getting right with the world's

people through international peace

achieved under communism.

Notes:
1. Baltimore Sun 21 February, 2003.
2. http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/
SafeandFree.cfm?ID=11817&c=206 Click on
link "For a detailed section-by-section analysis."
3. With this provision, the DOJ proposes to
resolve pending suits by the American Civil
Liberties Union and American-Arab Anti-
Discrimination Committee, et al, for information
on the more than 1,000 people detained since
911. The new Act actually says that defending
itself against the ACLU & ADC suits "requires
extensive Department of Justice resources,
which would be better spent detecting and
[incapacitating] terrorists."("Patriot Act Redux,"
abcnews.com 21 February, 2003)
4. Police in some cities oppose this measure,
saying that it will make it harder to get
cooperation from immigrant communities. MIM
doesn't give a hoot about the ease of police
work. We point this out to say that as the
reactionaries' state of desperation increases,
they have more trouble keeping their own
interests covered.

Petition: Defend civil liberties

against `anti-terrorist' attack

This petition and more information are available online

at http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/agitation/civlib/

index.html

With the Domestic Security Enhancement Act, or Patriot

Act II, the Department of Justice (DoJ) proposes to gut the

freedoms of speech and assembly, freedom from unreasonable

search and seizure, and cruel and unusual punishment, and

the rights to due process and speedy and public trial eliminate

checks and balances between the police agencies and the

courts, and do away with the public's right-to-know what its

government is doing.

If enacted, the Patriot Act II would:

* authorize secret arrests including those of material

witnesses who are not charged with a crime;

* bar defense attorneys from challenging use of secret

evidence;

* deny the right to sue for information on detainees under

the Freedom of Information Act;

* permit arrests and extraditions of citizens and non-citizens

alike to countries with which the U.S. has no extradition treaties

and without regard for those countries' humyn rights records;

* strip American citizenship from anyone who supports even

the lawful activities of organizations the administration calls

"terrorist;"

* create a new category of "domestic security surveillance"

for terrorism investigations with looser standards than criminal

investigations,

* provide for extended jail terms for common immigration

offenses; and

* allow summary deportation to any country in the world,

including those with no functioning government.

Patriot Act II would sacrifice basic Constitutional liberties,

and thus be detrimental to the security of the majority of people

living in the United States. We oppose this proposed legislation.

As discussed in an article on page 3, RAIL drafted

this statement in response to the ridiculous

grandstanding of the University of California Police

Department.

Campus Police recently released a statement,

distributed to all campus organizations by the Office of
Student Life, requesting organizations ban backpacks

from events and post visible security in response the
recent national "orange alert."

These `security' suggestions are ridiculous and

inconsistent: students are not asked to leave their
backpacks outside of classrooms, yet if a terrorist threat
were real in Santa Barbara, the classroom would be just

as vulnerable as any public event. More so, in fact, given
how many people are packed into some lecture courses.
The truth is the suggestions are not about security, they

are local initiatives by authorities to implement the Bush
administration's national objective of capitalizing on the
fear of the American public in order build support for

and weaken resistance to the military annihilation of
Iraq and the extension of the domestic police state.

The Bush administration's issuance of a heightened

security alert on February 7th is an attempt to further
incite fear in the American public during the Islamic Hajj,
the annual pilgrimage to Mecca. It is one more instance

of the US government representing threats in racial and
ethnic terms, whether it's the war on crime or the war on
terror. This latest incitement of fear linked to the Islamic

Hajj is part of a policy of racial profiling, which scapegoats
and targets people of color as barbarians at the gates of
civilization. If the government was consistent it would

also have issued heightened security alerts on
Christmas and Easter in the wake of the Oklahoma City
bombing in 1995.

While we recognize that we live in a time of insecurity,

we understand the cause of this insecurity to be rooted
in the policies and practices of the United States, its

allies, and proxies around the world. Since the end of

World War II, the US and its allies have overthrown
democratically elected governments, supported and

trained terrorists, assassinated political leaders of whom
they disapproved, and saturated the world with weapons.
Insecurity today is the legacy of this history.

The pattern continues in the present. The incitement of

fear and increased `security' measures will make no one
safer as long as the Bush administration provides overt

and covert military support to repressive regimes in places
like Israel, Saudi Arabia, Columbia, and the Philippines. A
superpower dropping thousands of cruise missiles on a

smaller, less industrialized nation already devastated by
12 years of war and sanctions will not stabilize the Middle
East. Rather, these policies will ensure a future of

continued insecurity and unending violence.

We, the undersigned organizations and individuals of

the UCSB community, declare that we will not comply

with the UCPD's security suggestions for the heightened
terrorist threat of early February 2003, nor will we be
intimidated into complying with any such ordinances in

the future. ... If the University administration is truly
concerned about peace and security, we demand it stop
supporting weapons research on campus, cut its ties with

the "defense" industry, speak out against UC oversight
of the nuclear weapons factories at Los Alamos and
Livermore National Laboratories, and divest from

companies doing business with Israel.

SIGNED: Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist League (SB),

Nikkei Student Union, Green Party-UCSB ASIAN!, Voices
4 Global Justice, HOLA, Muslim Student Association,
Queer Student Union, II9C, El Congreso, Student Action

Forum on the Middle East, Students Stopping Rape, Show
Space at Biko House, Women's Commission, Take Back
the Night

Statement against UC Santa Barbara's "security" policies

MIM Notes 279 · April 1, 2003 · Page 10

MIM on

Prisons & Prisoners

MIM seeks to build public opinion

against Amerika's criminal injustice sys-

tem, and to eventually replace the bour-

geois injustice system with proletarian jus-

tice. The bourgeois injustice system im-

prisons and executes a disproportionately

large and growing number of oppressed

people while letting the biggest mass mur-

derers -- the imperialists and their lack-

eys -- roam free. Imperialism is not op-

posed to murder or theft, it only insists that

these crimes be committed in the interests

of the bourgeoisie.

"All U.S. citizens are criminals--

accomplices and accessories to the crimes
of U.$. oppression globally until the day
U.$. imperialism is overcome. All U.S.
citizens should start from the point of view
that they are reforming criminals."

MIM does not advocate that all

prisoners go free today; we have a
more effective program for fighting
crime as was demonstrated in China
prior to the restoration of capitalism
there in 1976. We say that all prisoners
are political prisoners because under
the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, all
imprisonment is substantively
political. It is our responsibility to
exert revolutionary leadership and
conduct political agitation and
organization among prisoners --
whose material conditions make them
an overwhelmingly revolutionary
group. Some prisoners should and will
work on self-criticism under a future
dictatorship of the proletariat in those
cases in which prisoners really did do
something wrong by proletarian
standards.

Under Lock & Key

News from Prisons & Prisoners

NY censorship
techniques

There are some things I'd like to bring to

your attention. (1) I've agreed to contribute
my labor, intellect, leadership writings etc...
to the cause. However I don't mind "hustling"
stamps to donate, but in the New York State
prisons system if I mail stamps to an
organization the facility will confiscate them
and I'll get into trouble, and you will be placed
on my negative correspondence list which
means we will not be able to correspond.
Furthermore, every time I write MIM my mail
must be left open for inspection.

--a NY prisoner, February 2003

MIM responds: The treatment described

by this comrade is typical of how prisons
target MIM and other revolutionary groups
in their censorship. The policy on stamps is
something that we have not heard of before
in New York, and seems questionable. If
others have info on the policies or regulations
behind such actions please send them to
MIM.

GA prisoner is target
of further repression

I have been imprisoned in the Highmax Unit

at Georgia State Prison since July 26, 2001,
and I have seen my fellow prisoners coming
back from recreation, sick call, general
population, routine movements in handcuffs
with swollen eyes, busted skulls and bleeding
profusely from head, nose, etc. All were
jumped by the pigs, both black and white,
male and female, while in handcuffs behind
the back.

Recently, I have received information from

fellow comrades that a pig who holds the rank
of Lieutenant has made threats that he was
gonna hurt me bad and has been waiting on
the right opportunity to have me leave my
cell in handcuffs and be taken in a remote
area of the prisons to be assaulted with gloved
fists, kicked and beaten with sticks.

This Lt. is notorious for cursing, beating

inmates in handcuffs and allowing other
prisoners who are "snitches" to carry out
assaults on prisoners such as myself who file
grievances against these fascist, racist,
coward pigs down here in Tatnall county,
which is a former slave trading post and now
a modern day plantation.

Also, since my arrival at this prison, I have

had to continuously battle with my ink pen
and paper in an attempt to force mailroom
officials to turn over MIM Notes and/or notify
me with proper paperwork of their arrival.

Any prisoner here at G.S.P. who attempts

to file grievances, pass MIM literature around
or show signs of political organizing and
leadership, becomes an immediate target by
administration officials and mail inspectors,
who hold MIM literature for weeks or months
and place all your mail on a "censor list" to
search.

However, I have seen progress albeit slow,

and have been receiving MIM from August,
Sept., etc., and this is because of my
continuous notification of staff members that
MIM cannot be simply rejected because it
talks negatively about prisons or pigs, and
this continuous effort that has forced this

prison to allow MIM literature to slowly enter
Georgia State Prison.

--a Georgia prisoner, December 2002

Connecticut prisoner
encourages legal
struggle

Would you please send me a subscription

to MIM Notes? They are so informational
that I still have some that are 12 to 18 months
old. A number of guys are really feelin' them.

The gulags in Connecticut really like finger

fuckin' our mail, particularly if it potentially
inspires us to use their system to acquire
freedom and retribution.

I frequently get mail from the Department

of Justice and its various bureaus and offices.
They refuse to acknowledge mail emanating
from the Department of Justice as legal mail.
This shows how arrogant and ignorant these
piss-heads are. But their types of clear
violations are happening because Connecticut
prisoners (for the most part) appear to have
their backs broken. I'm from New York but I
have been down in Connecticut for 10 years
and this was culture shock to me. I just can't
get used to the passiveness that permeates
the Connecticut prison system. After a full
day of oppression, I've stood at the cell door
steaming, as prisoners bid some of the most
onerous suppressors good night.

However, there are a number of prisoners

whom I've inspired to fight the courtroom
battle. It's catching on. Another brother who
also isn't from this state was transferred to
Nevada because he had gotten a number of
cases flipped for brothers. He is known as
the Conqueror.

I'm doing all I can to free myself, and to

wake these guys up. Furthermore, I implore
all United Snakes prisoners to become
registered users of the National Criminal
Justice Reference Service. It's free. It's a great
resource of all types of information. Ask for a
registration package at:

National Criminal Justice Reference Service
P.O. Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
--a Connecticut prisoner, May 2002

Illegal control unit
status in GA
state prison

For the last three months, Administrative

officials at Georgia State Prison have begun a
new experimental program in SMU units M-1,
M-2, M-3, and M-4 in which prisoners on the
bottom tier have been placed on Sgt or above
status-- they have had steel cages placed
over an already steel and plexiglass window
in which special locks which close off view
and food tray slots have master locks which
can only be opened by a sergeant, lieutenant,
or above and [prisoners] are denied ice, hot
water, etc.

Warden Hugh Smith, Warden of Security,

Fred Brown, and unit manager Steve Dupree

have devised this illegal program, which has
no Department of Corrections (DOC)
Standard Operational Policy (SOP). SOPs are
all policies allocated by state legislature to
the pardon and parole boards, which in turn
oversee GA prisons.

Many prisoners feel powerless because of

their ignorance of the law and the fact that
correctional emergency response teams
(CERT) are allowed to use excessive force
against prisoners in handcuffs. This policy is
used against those who file lawsuits,
grievances, Muslims, natural leaders, etc. I
have attempted to encourage unity amongst
these all Black prisoners, many who are
enemies of one another and lately I myself
have begun to be threatened and harassed
by prison administration, but I will fight to
the end.

-- a Georgia prisoner

Juveniles tried as
adults in Tennessee

On February 26, 2003, news channel 3 in

Memphis, TN reported a new policy
implemented by the Shelby County injustice
system, which states that juveniles 16 or older
who are charged with violent crimes will be
turned over to the adult system for
prosecution. It was also noted that some
juveniles under 16 charged with violent crimes
will be tried as adults in some cases.

Concern for the rehabilitation of juvenile

delinquents seems to have dwindled
dramatically. The juveniles whom this policy
is directed at mainly are those from project
housing, poor quality educational systems,
dysfunctional families, and unemployment.
That is to say that the violent behaviors of
juveniles, which this policy was designed to
attack, are frequently, and in many cases
appropriately, attributed to the overall
conditions of these juveniles environments.
So, if in many cases the environment plays
the key role, then the one's responsible for
allowing such unfit environments to persist
must be burdened with harsher policies to
ensure that violent juveniles are no longer
breed by their immediate surroundings. These
environments are created by capitalism, a
system that punishes youth for being born
into poverty rather than offering equal
opportunities for all. It is the capitalists who
should be held responsible for this system.
Once the systematic deficiencies of youth
development are attacked, sufficiently
corrected, and no longer serve as a `cause'
for juvenile delinquency, then and only then
should such harsh policies (as charging
juveniles with violent crimes as adults) be
discussed.

Since juveniles in Shelby county charged

with violent crimes are now being prosecuted
and punished as adults, why not just reduce
the age of legal adulthood to 16 instead of 18
or 21? The insinuation of this new policy
appears to be that there is no hope for the
rehabilitation of juveniles charged with violent
crimes, regardless of it they are first time

offenders or not. Further, Memphis and
Shelby counties are only inches away from
imposing death penalties on its youth, which
according to this new policy, makes juveniles
eligible for capital punishment.

With such un-thought-out, cruel, unjust

measures being taken, the injustice system
and its advocates on this issue expose
themselves as the true hypocritical beasts/
oppressors/tyrants that they really are. If
concern for the rehabilitation of "juvenile
delinquents," as is the name adopted by the
courts for youths who commit crimes, has
been lost, then the so called concern for the
rehabilitation of adult convicts is a farce.

Even as this policy is being implemented,

there still remain the millions of tax dollars
furnished for the sole purpose of rehabilitating
the youth.

-- a prisoner in Tennessee, March 2003

MIM Notes 279 · April 1, 2003 · Page 11

Facts on U$ imprisonment

The facts about imprisonment in the United $tates are that the United $tates has been the world's leading prison-state per capita for the last

25 years, with a brief exception during Boris Yeltsin's declaration of a state of emergency.(1)

That means that while Reagan was talking about a Soviet "evil empire" he was the head of a state that imprisoned more people per capita.

In supposedly "hard-line" Bulgaria of the Soviet bloc of the 1980s, the imprisonment rate was less than half that of the United $tates.(2,3)

To find a comparison with U.$. imprisonment of Black people, there is no statistic in any country that compares including apartheid South

Africa of the era before Mandela was president. The last situation remotely comparable to the situation today was under Stalin during war
time. The majority of prisoners are non-violent offenders(4) and the U.S. Government now holds about a half million more prisoners than
China; even though China is four times our population.(5)

The rednecks tell MIM that we live in a "free country." They live in an Orwellian 1984 situation where freedom is imprisonment.

Notes: 1. Marc Mauer, "Americans Behind Bars: The International Use of Incarceration 1993," The Prison Sentencing Project, 918 F. St. NW, Suite

501, Washington, DC 20004 (202) 628-0871 Reference: SRI: R8965-2, 1994
2. Ibid., 1992 report.

3. United Nations Development Programme, "Human Development Report 1994,:" Oxford University Press, p. 186.

4. Figure of 51.2 percent for state prisoners there for non-violent offenses. Abstract of the United States 1993, p. 211.
5. Atlantic Monthly December, 1998.

From the MIM "Frequently Asked

Questions" page, http://www.etext.org/
Politics/MIM/faq.

Internationalism is the ethical belief or

scientific approach in which peoples of
different nations are held to be or assumed to
be equal. Internationalism is opposed to
racism and national chauvinism.

We Maoists believe the nationalism of

nations experiencing oppression of
imperialism is "applied internationalism." We
oppose nationalism of oppressed nations
directed at other oppressed nations, because
the economic content of such nationalism is
intra-proletarian conflict. We seek a united
front of oppressed nations led by the
international proletariat against imperialism.

"I must argue, not from the point of view

of `my' country (for that is the argument of a
wretched, stupid, petty-bourgeois nationalist
who does not realize that he is only a plaything
in the hands of the imperialist bourgeoisie),
but from the point of view of my share in the
preparation, in the propaganda, and in the
acceleration of the world proletarian
revolution. That is what internationalism
means, and that is the duty of the
internationalist, of the revolutionary worker,
of the genuine Socialist."

V. I. Lenin, "What Is Internationalism?"

The Proletarian Revolution and the
Renegade Kautsky (Peking: Foreign
Language Press, 1965), p. 80.

What is internationalism?

Setting up gang fights

I got a hold of one of the MIM Notes and

am impressed with your frankness and
realness about the going ons about us. After

reading #272, Dec 15, 2002 issue, some articles
about prisons, I'd like to share some
experiences I've had while here at this

Corcoran facility with you.

I am currently in Administrative

Segregation. On March 2, 2002 a riot broke

out on A facility between two Latino groups
(Southern Mexicans and Bulldogs) where 3
inmates were sliced and one was stabbed. A

30 day lock down was put into effect, but no
interviews were conducted of inmates from
these two groups. When an incident of this

nature happened before with two groups
(Nortenos and Bulldogs) the smaller of the
two groups was moved to another yard and

the institution has kept these two groups
apart. As should be done legally. This time
the groups were not separated, no parley was

attempted, and no placement of any inmates
in ad seg pending transfer.

After the 30 days, on 4-3-02 both groups

were let out. Partial Bulldogs from "one"
building and all Southern Hispanics from
"one" building. Another riot took place. The

administration had all extra staff there in riot
gear, face shields, extra flex (plastic) handcuffs,
elbow pads, staff from all general population,

ad. seg staff, escorting staff, ISU (Institutional
Services Unit) MTAs (Medical Technical
Assistant). In front of the A-Facility office

the personnel who hold classification were
there, correctional counselors, Lt. Diaz, they
were just grouped up, waiting , watching, for

something to happen. All they needed were
lawn chairs and some popcorn. A video
camera was manned by a CO on top of the

gym which recorded the riot.

All of this was and is illegal for

administration to set this type of incident up

and let it go down, with full knowledge, being
aware that a substantial risk of serious harm
was present to the inmates from each other.

I was given a SHU term of 4 months for

"Participation in a riot" which was completed
back in June of 2002 but I am still being

retained in Ad. Seg. The first Rule Violation
Report (RVR) 115 was reheard because I was
not allowed to view the video. The second

same 115 is being reissued reheard because
of another due process violation. When I went
to have the second 115 heard I was not given

my copy of the Investigative Employee report
which is supposed to be given 24 hours prior
to the hearing. At the hearing I let the hearing

officer Lt. Miller know this that I did not want
the 115 heard yet until I could review the

document but Lt. Miller didn't care and found

me guilty anyway, another due process
violation.

Here I sit in ad seg 10 months waiting to be

issued an RVR 115 and have it heard. When
normally this process takes 30 days. I have
602 appealed the write up, I have stated case

law in it. Administrators can not just let
violence take its course and then have a front
row seat and watch. No that's not legal. I have

also appealed the due process violations.

This place is so corrupt I wish others would

let it be known about conditions in the

prisons they're in.

-- a prisoner in California, CSP Corcoran,

February 2003

SHU rights violations

I am in the Security Housing Unit (SHU)

here at CCI Tehachapi. The administration

here has no regard at all for the Title 15 or
prisoner rights, and one of the main problems
is Sacramento seems to support them all day

long. You have prisoners complain about
violations but try to get them to do more than
complain is near impossible. I have been

reaching out to try to organize some form of
collective resistance to no avail. A lot of lip
service is the closest I can get to some

support. I have been branded as a problem
inmate because I dare to speak out against
these violations. I commonly hear "why are

you the only person complaining."

I propose first that all violations be

documented, and written up state wide then

a system wide suit pressed against the
director for allowing the individual
institutions to operate outside of the code of

regulations. Individual lawsuits are useless,
what's justice for one or two, we want a system
wide overhaul. Second, a mass education

campaign. So many of us prisoners are not
conscious of the abuses focusing our energy
on yard politics. Which amounts to nothing.

This does not take a large group, just a few
willing to sacrifice time and maybe a few
liberties.

-- a prisoner in California, CCI Tehachapi,

February 2003

MIM responds: We do have a state-wide

campaign on to both document and fight the
abuses both inside the SHU and elsewhere in
California prisons. We join this prisoner's call

to get all violations documented and written
up for MIM Notes. We will also say that there
are many prisoners willing to stand up and

do something more than just complain. We
are in touch with hundreds of them across
the state of California and United Struggle

from Within, the MIM-led organization for
prisoners, has been gaining new leaders by
the day in this state. USW has initiated a state-

wide study group on the MIM Theory journal

"Amerikan Prisons on Trial" to further study
and discuss our strategy for the battle in
California and across the entire Amerikan

Criminal Injustice System. Contact us to get
involved.

Three strikes: the
fight continues

It should surprise no one that the United

$tates Supreme Court upheld the
constitutionality of sending shoplifters to

prison for life.

I am one of over 4,000 nonviolent inmates

sentenced under the heavy-hand of

California's three strikes sentencing law. All
across the state, for those of us similarly
situated, our families and supporters had

hoped for a favorable ruling in Lockyer v.
Andrade and Ewing v. California.

On March 5, 2003, a sharply divided

Supreme Court held in a 5 to 4 decision that
sending petty theft offenders to prison for
life did not violate the 8th Amendment's ban

against cruel and unusual punishment.

A nonviolent third strike covers a lot of

ground. In California, a three strikes sentence

can be given for "any" felony if one has two
or more serious or violent priors. It does not
matter how long ago these convictions

occurred, or how minor the instant offense.
Of the 26 states and the federal governments
how have a form of three strikes on their

books, California stands alone in the "any"
felony distinction.

Regardless of what the proponents of three

strikes profess, it should not take a Supreme
Court debate to illustrate the fundamental
unfairness of giving someone a life sentence

for a crime which usually carries a sentence
of a couple of years. But apparently it does.
And obviously the nation's highest court will

continue to give states strong deference to
do as they please in criminal justice matters,
no matter how outrageous or extreme the

consequences.

A democratic society cannot support both

huge prison systems and successful school

districts. They are unable to coexist
harmoniously. It is simply not feasible. One
feeds off the other. Building and maintaining

a vast prison system means school districts
will have to suffer.

Dollars earmarked for criminal justice,

weather they be for law enforcement or
corrections, should never be used to
vigorously police and systematically

incarcerate as a macro and constant ideology.
Obviously, those who victimize deserve to
be punished. But education is the key, not

mindlessly subscribing to endless domestic

wars against one's own people. Bankrupting

the future in a futile attempt to sanitize the
present has not made the streets safer. On
the contrary, Amerika leads the world in both

deviance and rates of incarceration.

Since Californians are the ones responsible

for overwhelmingly approving three strikes

in 1994, they should be the ones to fix it --
not the Supreme Court. Three strikes is purely
a California problem, created by California's

drug war mongers and prison industrialists.

A 2004 ballot initiative is in the works to

amend three strikes to apply to only serious

crimes. The goal is not to set free predators
and violent criminals, but to close an ugly
chapter of California history that had both

shoplifters and drug addicts receiving life
sentences alongside murders and rapists.

For those of us struck out for non-serious

transgressions, we are our only victims. While
those who continue to dogmatically cling to
the criminal justice status quo are the real

perpetrators -- supporting injustice, no
matter what the cost.

-- a California prisoner, March 2003

MIM adds: We join the fight for changes

to the California Three Strike law while we

maintain our position that it must be
eliminated entirely. Laws that increase the
imprisonment rate in Amerika are not making

the streets safer, instead they are just helping
with the targeting of oppressed nations while
the real mass murderers, the imperialists,

remain in power.

California Prisons: Repression and Resistance

MIM Notes 279 · April 1, 2003 · Page 12

Notas Rojas

avril 1, 2003, Nº 279 Fragmento del Periodico Oficial del Movimiento Internacionalista Maoista

Gratis

¿Que es el MIM?

El Movimiento Internacionalista Maoísta (MIM) es un partido revolucionario

comunista que ejerce el Marxismo-Leninismo-Maoísmo. El MIM es una organización
internacionalista que trabaja desde el punto de vista del proletariado del Tercer Mundo;
es por esto que sus miembros no son amerikanos sino ciudadanos del mundo.

El MIM lucha para acabar con la opresión de todos los grupos sobre cualquier otro,

naciones por naciones, clases por clases, y géneros por géneros. La revolución es una
realidad para los Estados Unidos mientras su ejército continúa extendiendose en su
esfuerzo por asegurar la hegemonía mundial.

El MIM difiere de otros partidos en tres puntos basicos: (1) El MIM sostiene que

después que el proletariado conquiste el poder estatal, existira aún el potencial para una
restauración de tipo capitalista, bajo la dirección de una burguesía nueva dentro del
mismo partido comunista. En el caso de la Unión Soviética, la burguesía se apoderó del
gobierno después de la muerte de Stalin, en 1953; y en China después de la muerte de
Mao y del derrocamiento de la llamada "banda de los cuatro' en 1976. (2) El MIM
sostiene que la Revolución Cultural en China es la fase ms avanzada a la que llegó el
comunismo en la historia. (3) El MIM afirma que la clase trabajadora blanca de los
EE.UU. es primordialmente, una élite trabajadora no revolucionaria en el presente. Es
por esto que no es el principal vehículo para avanzar el Maoísmo en este país.

El MIM acepta como miembro a cualquier individuo que esté de acuerdo con estos

tres puntos basicos, y que acepte al centralismo democrtico, el método de gobierno por
la mayoría en lo que se refiere a cuestiones de línea del partido. El MIM es un partido
clandestino que no publica los nombres de sus miembros para evitar la represión estatal
dirigida históricamente contra los movimientos revolucionarios comunistas, y anti-
imperialistas. Si Ud. desea una suscripción para cualquiera de nuestros periódicos o
libros teóricos, en español o en inglés, por favor mandar dinero en efectivo o un cheque
al nombre de MIM a esta dirección:

MIM · P.O. Box 29670 · Los Angeles CA 90029-0670

4 de diciembre, 2002

Traducido por Células de Estudio

para la Liberación de Aztlán y

América Latina

Los coreanos del sur continúan

protestando contra la absolución de dos

soldados americanos que habían

aplastado a dos estudiantes coreanas

con su vehículo militar en junio (1) a pesar

de las disculpas tardías de Bush. Entre

los manifestantes que han participado en

las protestas están unos jóvenes

militantes que lanzaron unos recipientes

de cocktail Mólotov contra una

instalación militar yanqui la semana

pasada, y unos grupos religiosos que

marcharon ayer en Seúl. (2)

Aunque no todos los manifestantes

reunidos en torno a este incidente trágico

más reciente creen que las 35,000 tropas

americanas que se encuentran en el

terreno coreano deberían marcharse- un

dueño de un restaurante tomo la decisión

de no poner en la ventana un póster

diciendo "!Yanquis, váyanse a su casa!"

porque el mensaje era "demasiado

fuerte" y, en cambio, puso un póster

diciendo "Los americanos no están

bienvenidos aquí" (3)- más y más gente

está viendo esta conexión. Un sacerdote

anglicano entrevistado durante la

protesta de ayer dijo: "En vez de ser

asesinado por un vehículo militar

estadounidense, preferiría morir por

mano de nuestra propia gente en la

Corea del Norte si es que hay guerra".

(2)

Como mencionamos en la última

edición de MIM Notes, la opinión

pública en la Corea del Sur se está

volviendo en contra de EE.UU.; hasta

bandas de música pop coreanas sacan

videos antiamericanos. Tan sólo un

tercio de los coreanos del sur

entrevistados recientemente tenían una

opinión favorable de EE.UU.

compradando con casi dos tercios, en

1994. Más de 50% de la gente piensa

que Bush está metiendo en líos a la

Corea del Norte con el fin de vender

aviones de caza al régimen títere de la

Corea del Sur. (4)

Los norteamericanos deberían hacer

mucho caso de lo que están diciendo

sus ex-amigos en la Corea del Sur. No

debería haber ninguna razón para que

los coreanos sospechen una intervención

con fines lucrativos en sus asuntos por

parte de Bush, aunque lo más probable

es que sus sospechas tengan razón. Es

bastante difícil llevarse bien tal como

están las cosas. Los norteamericanos

tienen que afrontar a sus líderes

probélicos; hasta entonces no tienen

porque quejarse de los dueños de

restaurantes que les impiden disfrutar su

barbacoa favorita en Seúl.

De hecho, los norteamericanos corren

suerte si lo único que tienen que enfrentar

son insultos en la calle o un boicoteo en

un restaurante. Este año unos soldados

norteamericanos fuera de guardia se

enfrentaron con unos coreanos del sur

que se encontraban camino a una

protesta en contra del asesinato de las

estudiantes. Aunque los testimonios de

lo que pasó varían- según los coreanos,

los soldados se burlaron de sus volantes

y atacaron a un señor viejo que acabó

en el hospital- lo importante es que los

manifestantes forzaron a uno de los

soldados a atender la manifestación y

leer una declaración pidiendo disculpas

por la muerte de las niñas y el ataque

contra los manifestantes.

Por un lado, es probable que aquel

soldado en particular no tenía nada que

ver con la muerte de las niñas y no había

sido más que un "testigo inocente". Por

otro lado, todo el personal militar había

sido mandado a Corea como un ejército

ocupante lo cual lo convierte en un obvio

blanco del resentimiento por parte del

pueblo coreano. El MIM responde a los

militares estadounidenses que se sienten

atrapados: "pues sí, están Uds.

atrapados". Los imperialistas se pueden

dar el lujo de permitir que unas cuantas

personas sufran las consecuencias de sus

sistema. Aquellos militares que

Se intensifican las protestas del pueblo

coreano contra las tropas estadounidenses

reconocen que son parte de un sistema

bélico deberían intentar dejar de serla

por medio de oponerse a algunas de (o

todas) las responsabilidades.

Definitivamente no deben permitir que

su rabia afecte a los coreanos.

El MIM no se opone al intento de los

manifestantes coreanos del sur de

organizar campañas educativas

esporádicas. Teóricamente, estaban

haciendo lo mismo que hizo el gobierno

revolucionario de China al encarcelar a

Allyn y Adelle Rickett por su actividad

de espionaje justo antes de la Guerra

Coreana. Según lo describen los Rickett

en su libro Priosioneros de la Liberación,

su encarcelamiento y autocrítica forzada

les obligó a deshacerse de sus

presunciones chovinistas sobre la

superioridad de las vidas

norteamericanas e intereses personales

frente a las de los coreanos o chinos.

Fuentes consultadas:

1. MIM Notes 261, 1 julio 2002;

MIM Notes 262, 15 julio 2002.

2. Video AP, 3 diciembre 2002.

3. Los Angeles Times, 27 Nov 2002.

4. MIM Notes 272, 15 diciembre

2002.

El militarism amerikano trae muerte y la destrucción a la gente del mundo.