Afghanistan is drafting a new Constitution--but so far it looks nothing like ours. A top-secret draft of the new constitution is circulating among the nine members of the closed secret committee in Afghanistan that drafted it, and classified copies have been provided to a handful of UN employees and Bush administration officials with security clearances. Just the notion that you'd need a security clearance in order to read a draft copy of the new Constitution for Afghanistan is offensive. So, naturally, someone in Washington DC has leaked a copy to The International Crisis Group, a think tank in Washington DC devoted to conflict resolution. In turn, they wrote a report that hasn't been picked up and covered by the major media.

Mary Jacoby of the St. Petersburg Times, however, reports that the document is notable for what it's missing: most of the rights you and I take for granted. For example, Afghani citizens will have no freedom of speech, no equal rights for women or ethnic minorities, no freedom of religion, no firm commitment to international treaties, and no protection for critics of the government, who could be jailed as blasphemers. The new Constitution would permit extremely cruel forms of punishment, including death by stoning for sexual crimes. In other words, it's a lot like how the Taliban ruled the country. Evidently, the closed, secret nature of the committee sessions where it was drafted made it extremely easy for the religiously conservative members of the committee to dominate the proceedings. The actual document itself will remain under wraps until September 1, when it will be released to the public. About a month later, in October, a loya jirga will convene to ratify the new Constitution. You read it here first.

When quizzed about the document, State Department spokesman Philip Reeker said, "Right now I'm saying we're pleased there's a process to begin consultations on it." (Never mind that those consultations will be held in secret, with no public input.) "We'll continue to support the Afghan government and the UN assistance mission through the conclusion of the constitutional loya jirga." In other words, even if the constitution enshrines oppression, the Bush administration will support it. So much for bringing freedom and democracy to the oppressed people of the world.--Maria Tomchick. Source: "Few rights in Afghan constitution," St. Petersburg Times, reprinted in Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 6/24/03, A4.

Lt. Colonel Ronnie McCourt, referring to the last week's ambush by pissed off Iraqis, which resulted in the deaths of six British soldiers, says that, "This attack was unprovoked. It was murder."

So, to define terms.

A retaliation by niggers against a force of white soldiers occupying their country, in response to the occupiers having fired rubber bullets at a demonstration against invasive home searches, shall be known as "unprovoked murder".

Meantime, an unprovoked, illegal, unilateral war and subsequent occupation killing tens of thousands of niggers (in the short-term) shall be known as "liberation."

Can you say, "Orwell walks among us"? I knew you could!

Incidentally, it is entirely within the bounds of International Law for an occupied people to mount attacks against occupying military forces. The specific language of General Assembly Resolution 37/43 affirms "the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle." But then, International Law is deader than a doorknob these days. --Eddie Tews

And don't forgot, those same international laws, recognizing the right of an occupied people to fight back, apply to the evil, "terrorist" Palestinian groups like Hamas -- groups that are also providing far more in the way of social services to beleaguered Palestinians than the shadow-government known as the Palestinian Authority. That's why Hamas and the political tendencies it represents must be negotiated with -- not targeted in a futile attempt to "eradicate" them. Hamas et al. cannot be eliminated by force -- that's a lesson from the last half-century of liberation struggles that the US ignores at its peril, in Palestine and Iraq both. Afghanistan, too.--Geov Parrish

Oh, and in a follow-up note that should surprise nobody, Israel's military prosecutor has exonerated Israeli soldiers in the death of Olympia activist Rachel Corrie, 23, who was killed--murdered, according to eyewitnesses--by an Israeli bulldozer in March as she protested the destruction of a Palestinian home at the Rafah refugee camp. Think of it as the Israeli equivalent of just another black guy shot by the cops. --G.P.

And here's another police state follow-up: after essentially throwing out people who came to testify and cutting short a meeting of his public safety committee of the city council, on police abuses at last month's anti-LEIU protests, committee chair Jim Compton has, without explanation, cancelled the next two committee meetings.

One of the biggest reasons Seattle police can do whatever the hell they like is that the institutions legally bound to oversee them -- city council and the mayor's office -- could not care less about abuses. Compton epitomizes this approach in his city council role. Meantime, he's up for re-election this summer and fall. Might I suggest that police abuse victims who's still like to make sure Compton hears about the police, and the public hears about Comptom's complicity, dog him at every single campaign appearance he makes. If Compton doesn't care about goons running amok, perhaps he cares about his job. --G.P.

For more on the psychology of empire, we return to Iraq: on June 21, a Reuters wire service reporter happily wrote that American troops of the First Battalion of the 24th Infantry Regiment listened to loud, rousing music before heading out on their house-to-house searches for "Baath Party loyalists" in a suburb of Baghdad. Who was the composer of choice? Richard Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries blared over the loudspeakers. The reporter drew the connection to the movie Apocalypse Now (without pointing out the ironic connection to the quagmire of Vietnam), but he completely missed any connection to the German Nazi preference for the stirring strains of Wagner. Even when the troops on patrol rousted Iraqi men from their homes, handcuffed them, and wrote codes on their forearms in marking pen, no connection was made. Except by the Iraqis, of course.--M.T. Source: "US Troops Smash Open Homes to Hunt Iraqi Militants," Andrew Gray, Reuters, 6/21/03,

US troops in Iraq are complaining that they're being required to do jobs they were never trained for, including work the Bush administration assumed aid organizations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) would do. This week, it became clear why many NGOs are staying out of Iraq--and not just for security reasons. The US Agency for International Development is requiring that five major NGOs that receive US funds for aid or reconstruction work in Iraq identify themselves in the field as recipients of US government money and therefore representatives of the US government. InterAction, a consortium of NGOs, said USAID administrator Andrew Natsios told them, "NGOs ... are an arm of the US government." However, NGOs prefer to work independently and, given the escalating attacks against US troops and the Iraqis working with them, it makes sense for NGOs to maintain their independence. In addition, NGOs receive money from other sources besides the US government; identifying themselves as "an arm of the US government" would jeopardize that funding. USAID has also told NGOs that they will have to seek clearance from USAID before they can have contact with the media, a direct attempt to censor the statements of humanitarian aid workers in Iraq. So far, two of the five NGOs (Mercy Corps and Save the Children) are trying to negotiate a better deal from the US government before beginning operations in Iraq.--M.T. Source: "NGOs Feel the Squeeze from Bush Administration," Jonathan Wright, Reuters, 6/24/03.

Meanwhile, the Bush Administration is attracting the wrath of two continents for its complete lack of interest in the bloody civil war now wracking Liberia. In that war, rebels are attempting to displace the bloody rule of force imposed by head thug Charles Taylor; renewed fighting has resulted in, among other things, 250,000 refugees pouring into the outskirts of the capital city of Monrovia. Casualties are high, resources to treat them are minimal, and the refugees' situation is rapidly turning into a humanitarian disaster.

What does this have to do with the United States? Alone among African countries, Liberia -- founded by former American slaves -- has close historic ties to the US. And in recent years several other African civil wars have been settled after peacekeeping forces stepped in, sent by the European powers (usually former colonists, such as Britain and France) most closely associated with the damaged country in question.

Not the United States, which seems to want all the benefits of running the world, but none of the responsibilities that come with even being one of its more powerful members. Wonder if things would be different if Liberia were Muslim, or if it had oil? --G.P.

Biodiversity Northwest (BNW), which changed its name from Pacific Crest Biodiversity Project just over a year ago, is now undergoing a major organizational transition as it merges much of efforts with another fine forest-defending organization, Northwest Ecosystem Alliance (NWEA). BNW has relinquished its office and staff, but its board intends to regroup sometime after the summer months to assess carrying on as a volunteer and member-driven organization.

The shift came about as a result of a simultaneous departure of its four staff members (all on good terms, for different reasons), followed by some soul-searching by the board and recognition that the Bellingham-based organizational ally, NWEA, was already working on many of the same key issues.

It's a good match, as both groups have been effective advocates for Northwest forests, while filling a different niche than mainstream enviro groups. BNW and Seattle Earth First! led a well-known and successful campaign to protect the Cedar River watershed (which provides most of Seattle's drinking water) from commercial logging, organized civil disobedience against "salvage logging" in the Olympic National Forest, supported tree-sits in the Gifford Pinchot, and built alliances with rural, logging-dependent communities by pushing forest restoration as an alternative to lost logging jobs.

One BNW staffer, Peter Nelson, will continue working on restoration efforts for the remainder of the summer out of NWEA's Fremont office, where the Cascades Conservation Partnership is located. For more information on NWEA, see www.ecosystem.org. To help plan the future of BNW, contact info@biodiversitynw.org, 206-545-3734 (vm), or send mail to Biodiversity NW, 4509 Interlake Ave. N, #108, Seattle WA 98103.

Meanwhile, BNW co-founder Suzanne Pardee has opened a Seattle office of the outstanding Eugene-based Native Forest Council (www.forestcouncil.org). Contact info: 206-633-6043, seattleinfo@forestcouncil.org. With the forest-destroying agenda of our current administration, the forests need all the help they can get. --Lansing Scott

As of this writing it appears that the U.S. Congress, responding to an historic groundswell of media reform activism, is poised to roll back most of the newly proposed broadcast ownership rules approved by the Republican controlled FCC. These new rules, like the ban on local ownership of newspaper and television and radio stations, would no doubt spark a new wave of media consolidation similar to that under the odious Telecommunications Act of 1996. Under the Telecom Act most local ownership of radio stations disappeared in a few years, as radio stations nationwide were bought up by chains like Clear Channel and Viacom in an historic merger binge.

Besides fighting to roll back the newly proposed FCC ownership rules and the Telecom Act, the media reform movement needs to address the dire financial situation most public service broadcasting, and non-profit media in general, is faced with these days. Years of political pressure from the right have taken its toll on funding for public broadcasting and community radio stations across the nation. PBS and NPR have been accepting corporate underwriting for years and are now seriously contemplating running full blown commercial advertisements to pay the bills.

One proposal for addressing the general funding crisis in public broadcasting and non-profit media in general has been put forward by economist Dean Baker, and is constantly brought up by media historian Robert McChesney in the speeches he gives across the nation (http://www.media-alliance.org/mediafile/20-1/mcchesney.html). What Baker suggests is allowing any American to redirect $150 in their taxes to any tax exempt non-profit media outlet of their choice. This would be $150 from money already owed in taxes and is not to be confused with tax deductible contributions. This money could be given to a publication like Eat The State! [assuming we wanted it--ed.] or a community radio station like KEXP. A proposal like this would put up to $25 billion every year into the bank accounts of non-profit media organizations, and give these institutions a chance to be something other than marginal, hole-in-the-wall operations with extremely limited influence and reach.

It's simply not enough for non-profit alternative media to exist on islands, devoid of the necessary funding to reach a mass audience with genuine alternative media. The Baker-McChesney proposal is just one of many creative ways alternative non-profit media could be funded in a meaningful way. We've been subsidizing corporate media, whether through the mailing permit or gifts of broadcast spectrum, for over a century now. The time for generously subsidizing noncommercial alternative media is long overdue.