Translate

Feb 21, 2010

Cut the "ambiguity", ambassador, or pack your bags

 



Cut the "ambiguity", ambassador, or pack your bags

aletho | February 21, 2010 at 8:30 pm | Categories: Supremacism, Social Darwinism, Wars for Israel | URL: http://wp.me/pIUmC-1uY

Challenging UK support for Israeli criminals

By Stuart Littlewood | 22 February 2010

Hey, Mr Foreign Secretary Miliband,

Let me tell you something. If I were the British foreign secretary there would be no more "friendly chats". The Israeli ambassador would have 24 hours to find a cure for his "ambiguity" or pack his bags. How dare that lawless, racist regime smugly sit in its London offices and keep us guessing whether or not they have abused our sovereignty and hijacked our passport system?

Britain is far too cosy with the Israelis. Given their thieving, power-crazed ambitions in the Middle East (and beyond), how reliable is the intelligence they are said to share with us anyway?

Our government is riddled with Zionist sympathizers right up to the top. Our most important security bodies – the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Defence Committee – are all chaired by Israel flag-wavers. Whose bright idea was that?

Blair and Brown are patrons of the Jewish National Fund, an organization that acquires stolen Palestinian lands and helps fund illegal settlements in the occupied territories. Are they mad?

When Labour bites the dust in the elections in May, we can expect no better from the Conservatives who are waiting in the wings, if the findings of Peter Oborne's recent Channel 4 Dispatches programme are anything to go by. Cameron has declared himself a Zionist and is also a patron of the JNF, as are the Israeli ambassador and the Chief Rabbi. So there'll be a seamless transfer of Zionist influence to our new government and business as usual with that pseudo-democracy (yes, you can drop the pretense; everyone knows Israel is an ethnocracy with apartheid knobs on).

The Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission reports that your "true friend" Israel has a nuclear arsenal numbering in the hundreds, possibly larger than our own. It has a plutonium production reactor and reprocessing facility, and possibly a uranium enrichment capability.

You'll also know that Israel is the only state in the region not to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, nor has it signed the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. It has signed but not ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, similarly the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Nevertheless, the rogue regime and its stooges screech their eagerness to obliterate Iran and involve us in their dirty work, even though the Islamic state as yet has no nuclear capability – unless Tehran managed to get its hands on one of the warheads rumoured to have been mislaid by the US. Is that why everyone is wetting their pants?

Back to the extra-judicial assassination in Dubai. Given all the amazing intelligence we're supposed to receive from our "trusted allies", any foreign secretary worth his salt would at least know if and how Britain was implicated in the crime, which, according to Sunday Times, was OK'd by your good buddy the Israeli prime minister.

Or are you seriously telling us you haven't a clue?

Talking of atrocities, you know perfectly well that we are solemnly obligated – and rightly so – to seek and prosecute all who have allegedly committed war crimes. Your enthusiasm for changing the law of universal jurisdiction and turning the UK into a safe house for Israeli psychopaths to freely walk the streets of London, makes our country and particularly yourself a laughing stock in the civilized world.

Yes, we've been well and truly stitched up at government level. But here at street level we're not so stupid.

Source

Add a comment to this post




--
Peace.

Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com
Amazon's: DEBATING THE HOLOCAUST: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton

__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___

Ooooh Snap: 67yr Old Elderly Man Gets Active On Black Man On A Bus For Getting Disrespectful! (Raw Footage)

 
__,_._,___

Duke lacrosse accuser charged with attempted murder, arson

 


Crystal Mangum

Durham police late Wednesday arrested the woman who four years ago falsely accused three Duke University lacrosse players of raping her.
Crystal Mangum assaulted her boyfriend, set his clothes on fire in a bathtub and threatened to stab him, investigators said.

A judge set her bond at $1 million during a Thursday morning court appearance. Mangum, 33, has been appointed a public defender and is scheduled to appear in court on Feb. 22.

Police charged her with attempted first-degree murder, five counts of arson, assault and battery, communicating threats, three counts of misdemeanor child abuse, injury to personal property, identity theft and resisting a public officer.

Shortly after 11:30 p.m., police received a 911 call about a domestic dispute at 2220 Lincoln St. Authorities said they believe the call came from one of the three children inside the house.

When officers arrived, they found Mangum and her boyfriend, Milton Walker, 33, fighting. According to police documents, Mangum scratched, punched and threw objects at Walker and told him, "I'm going to stab you, (expletive)!"

She then went into a bathroom and set his clothes on fire in the bathtub, police said. Officers called the fire department to put out the flames. No one was injured.

Milton was not charged, police said. The three children inside the house, ages 3, 9 and 10, were not injured.
Officers said Mangum gave them a fake name, "Marella Mangum," and age, prompting the identity theft charge. She also resisted the officers who responded to the scene, according to police documents.

Mangum has been ordered to have no contact with Walker.

Mangum – who penned her memoir, "Last Dance for Grace," in 2008 – was a student at North Carolina Central University in 2006 and also worked as an exotic dancer when she performed at the now-infamous Duke lacrosse party.

It was there, she claimed, that three white members of the team trapped her inside a bathroom and raped and sexually assaulted her.

The three players were indicted on rape and other charges on the basis of her allegations and were eventually exonerated after North Carolina's attorney general dismissed the charges.

The case ultimately cost former Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong his job and he was later disbarred. He also spent a night in jail for lying to a Superior Court judge.

Several players in the Duke lacrosse case, including Duke Unviersity and the North Carolina Attorney General's Office, declined to comment on the case.

Nifong could not be reached for comment.

"My heart goes out to her," Joseph Cheshire, who represented one of the accused lacrosse players.



--
Peace.

Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com
Amazon's: DEBATING THE HOLOCAUST: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton

__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___

Dats what I am talkin bout! White guy in Oakland hammers Black criminal.

 

Feb. 2010

Ooooh Snap: 67yr Old Elderly Man Gets Active On Black Man On A Bus For Getting Disrespectful! (Raw Footage)


--
Peace.

Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com
Amazon's: DEBATING THE HOLOCAUST: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton

__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___

Prof. Finkelstein Banned in Berlin

 

Feb. 19, 2010

by Anis Hamadeh

19/02/2010 - Dr. Norman Finkelstein wrote several books in the field Israel/Palestine/Holocaust and is one of the most sagacious analysts of our time. Similar to Professor Ilan Pappe, he formulates sharp criticism in respect to past and presence of the State of Israel, and both use very rational argumentations and are reliable researchers. Especially since the mass murders in Jenin and in Gaza, these two men and many other Jews (also in Germany) speak out, because they do not want to be taken in for violent purposes by a state that arrogates to speak and act in the name of all Jews.

As is known now, both the Heinrich Boell Foundation and the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation have canceled Finkelstein talks that were already scheduled in Berlin. While the foundation close to the Green party did not even bother to explain its behavior, the board of the foundation close to the Left party explained its drawback in a media info with the empty statement that such a talk would be "explosive" ("brisant").

What is going on there, one wonders. Does Finkelstein call for violence? Are his views outside legal norms, does he disesteem the human rights? Nothing of all this. On the contrary. The reason for banning him is the veto of groups that seek to avert criticism of Israel, connecting this issue with the reproach of anti-Semitism. This is an old chestnut and not specifically interesting. What is interesting, though, is that the German public buys this nonsense and denies a man, who lost his family in German concentration camps, to talk on German soil, tolerating that he is labeled an anti-Semite for his reflections on violence in Israel. The same thing actually happened only some months ago to the Israeli historian Ilan Pappe in Munich, when the city's Lord Mayor canceled a scheduled talk. Pappe then wrote in an open letter that his father "was silenced in a similar way as a German Jew in the early 1930s".

The German Self-Conception

So let us revisit the German self-conception and then take a short look at the historical background to understand this apparantly great fear that is going around in Germany. Recently, when the Israeli politician Shimon Peres talked on the occasion of the Holocaust Memorial Day in the German Bundestag, he received standing ovations. The few, who did not stand up for their refusal of Peres' and Israel's violent policies, were publically attacked. There is, for example, the quote of a member of the Bundestag: "The Nazi crimes, the Shoa, and the war of annihilation are the original crime of humanity. (...) The Jewish victims of National Socialism are memorized on January 27 in the Bundestag memorial. On this occasion, only they and the reminder of 'Never again!' can be the topic. Everything else in this context is a relativization of the Nazi crimes." It is a quote typical for Germany and reveals the German angst as well as the great danger that goes with it.

The genocide of the Jews in this quote is taken out of any historical context and declared a unique event. Firstly, this reveals a "We (We!) are the greatest" narcissism. Secondly, it reveals a pro-Jewish racism, as if one racism could make up for another one. Not the victims are important, no, the Jewish victims are. The Nazi killing of Sinti and Roma thus is kind of OK. And how much then will the killing of Palestinains be OK if conducted by Jews. Put in a more general way: while calling the genocide of the Jews the "original crime", the unique and incomparable act, every other crime is relativized and thus not so important. Finkelstein and Pappe do not fit in here, they disturb the celebration by entering the historical framework, which is all the more embarrassing as they are Jews with family ties to Nazi victims. Banning them shows that in the end even Jewish Nazi victims are not what the whole circus is about, despite all the pathetic oaths and solemn declarations. This is what Germany fears, that people realize that public "Remembering the Holocaust" is a fake and that Finkelstein and Pappe are eloquent and powerful enough to unmask this pharce.

Germany has decided to do penance for the Nazi crimes by means of supporting the State of Israel. When it stands in solidarity with the Zionist state, then Germany would fulfil its historical responsibility. This dogma is not questioned, although it is beyond any logic to support Zionism of all things in order to do penance. Beyond logic not in the first place because there had been fruitful cooperations between Nazis and Zionists. (It was in the interest of both ideologies to bring Jews out of Germany.) What is much worse is that violence is not recognized as the problem. Thus Hitler has won in the end, for the violence that made this criminal a criminal in the first place, this violence has not stopped. On the contrary: the compulsive "Never again!" serves as a justification of violence and killing. This works only because the genocide of the Jews was taken out of its historical context and floats around freely.

 

The Israeli Self-Conception

Both Finkelstein and Pappe write about the missing historical context and this is what people are afraid of, for both use their arguments brilliantly, even compelling, and they are concerned as Jews whose families have Nazi experiences. Like Goldstone, Chomsky, and some others, the two academics are subject to hate and rejection of the ruling Zionism and its strenuous friends. Finkelstein lives in the USA, where Zionism is even stronger than in Israel, and he does not lead an easy life. Pappe needed to go to exile in England, because life in Israel became unbearable for him. He wrote the book "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine" in which he clearly shows how the Israeli state was built on heavy violence. Considering that both authors face bans in Germany it is no wonder that there is not much heard of the events around 1948 other than flat stereotypes.

According to the Israeli self-conception the Zionist state emerged out of a "War of Independence". In this view, the Jewish victims of National Socialism have created a state to protect themselves and were immediately attacked by their evil Arab neighbors. This version of the story is sacrosanct and is defended with great hysteria, be it in Israel or in Germany, because it does not bear with a neutral analysis. For when Israel was founded in May 1948, the ethnic cleansing of Palestine had already been going on for half a year. This was called "Plan Dalet/Plan D" and everybody can read about it. Hundreds of indigenous Palestinians were killed and hundreds of thousands were expelled from their villages by Zionist militias. According to the Israeli self-conception many Palestinians went away voluntarily, as if anybody would voluntarily leave their home and property just like that.

International pressure led to the UN partition plan which deprived the native population of a little more than half of Palestine which was to be given to the Zionists. Yet the Zionists were not content with that. They received weapons and took more of the land by force. When they then built a state on this land, they did not do it in agreement with anybody, but unilaterally and surprisingly. The dogma of the "right of existence" was invented so that people would not talk about these events anymore. Here is the seed of the problems we are confronted with until today. It is possible to begin earlier, with the Sykes Picot Treaty or the first settlers from abroad who for the most part did not integrate, but appeared aggessively. One can talk about the British and about Zionist and Arab terrorism, about Jabotinsky and other pioneers. But it is the founding of the state and Plan D which show most clearly why history is escalating until today.

The massacre of Deir Yassin happened in the framework of this plan, it was covered in the world press. Nobody was ever held responsible for this blood-spree and thus a precedence was created which is working until today. Nobody has been taken to account for the mass murder in Gaza, neither, and all the other massacres that Israel habitually commits. The Plan D land theft is another precedence, for up to this day the Israeli territory gets wider while the Palestinian territory shrinks. All this is inherent in the biased concept of "right of existence", as are the race laws from 1950 which guarantee all Jews in the world a "right of return" to Israel while the expelled native population had to keep out, an unprecedented act in the long history of the country. Their land and property was confiscated by the new masters who clinged to a blood-and-soil ideology. A lot of this reminds one of the Nazis, which by no means is a wonder, when you consider the victim/perpetrator dynamics. It is known that victims, because of their traumas, are prone to become perpetrators and it is so obvious that it takes a whole lot of energy to suppress the respective discourse. It is suppressed, in militarized Israel just like in Germany, it is taboo. For this reason, a government of right-wing extremists in Israel is not a problem. Right-wing extremism is not right-wing extremism, when it comes to Israel.

 

The Tip of the Iceberg

The cancelation of Finkelstein's talks are but the tip of a huge iceberg. While these lines are written, Palestinian houses in Barta'a Ash-Sharqiya are being demolished and in Sheikh Jarrah/Jerusalem new land thefts are scheduled. A big historic Arab graveyard is to be confiscated to build a "Museum of Tolerance" on it while in Bil'in the nonviolent resistance against the wall enters its sixth year. The protesters are injured by the army on a regular basis, and also killed. The world press says almost nothing about the heroes of nonviolent resistance, because it does not fit the image. Russian Jews in Be'er Sheva in the Negev have just killed a bedouin boy and heavily injured another, while a group of fundamentalist settlers have injured a Palestinian child in Hebron. About 11.000 Palestinians are kept in Israeli prisons. The "checkpoints" to Nablus have been closed down recently so that nobody can enter. The Gaza fishermen are being shot at by the Israeli navy and Gaza is still under siege. The head of the Dubai police just confirmed that according to police investigations there is a very high probability that the Mossad is behind the murder of a Hamas politician in the Emirates. Every day you can read on http://www.theheadlines.org what happens in the country and that since 1948 there has been no change of the routine. In Germany, the Palästina Portal is one of the sources one can turn to.

Most of what happens remains unknown to us, our media skips most of it, in fear of an increasing "anti-Semitism". It is for the same reason that we are not to listen to Finkelstein and Pappe, for they verify the terrible events and the historical development sketched above. Instead, we are fed with "information" on "terrorism". It is well-known to some of the leading politicians and opinion-leaders that the Israeli policy can only lead to the self-destruction of the State of Israel. Call it a culture of death. Maybe self-hatred is another reason for this behavior, something human rights advocates like Finkelstein and Pappe are labeled by exactly those who display it themselves. But even according to our mainstream dogmas we have a big problem here, for this development is bad for the Jews, too, the Zionists among them and the anti-Zionists.

Norman Finkelstein (http://www.normanfinkelstein.com) will talk about Gaza in Munich on Feb. 24, 7 p.m. Amerikahaus, Karolinenplatz 3, and on Feb. 25, 7 p.m., Kulturhaus Milbertshofen, Curt-Mezger-Platz 1

SOURCE http://www.anis-online.de/1/essays/24.htm

Link: http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/


--
Peace.

Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com
Amazon's: DEBATING THE HOLOCAUST: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton

__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___

Bush could order civilians "exterminated"

 






SATURDAY 20 FEBRUARY 2010



DOJ Report on Torture Memo: Yoo Said Bush Could Order Civilians "Exterminated"

Friday 19 February 2010

by: Jason Leopold, t r u t h o u t | Report


(Image: Lance Page / t r u t h o u t; Adapted: amarine88, Bebopsmile, dog ma)

For background on Jason Leopold's extensive work on the Yoo/Bybee torture memo report please see here, here, here, and here. Leopold will also be writing a through analysis of the voluminous report this weekend.

A long-awaited report into the legal memos former Justice Department attorneys John Yoo and Jay Bybee prepared for the Bush administration on torture was released Friday afternoon and concluded that the men violated "professional standards" and should be referred to state bar associations where a further review of their legal work could have led to the revocation of their law licenses. 

But career prosecutor David Margolis, who reviewed the final version of the report, changed the disciplinary recommendations to "exercised poor judgment." [There are three versions of the report, all of which can be found here.]

That means Yoo and Bybee will not be punished for having fixed the law around Bush administration policy that allowed the CIA to subject suspected terrorists to torture techniques, such as waterboarding, beatings, and sleep deprivation, as the report notes.

Yoo is a law professor at UC Berkeley and Bybee is a 9th Circuit Appeals Court judge. Former Justice Department official Steven Bradbury also authored several torture memos and was criticized in the OPR report. Investigators said they had "serious concerns about his analysis." But the report did not charge him with ethical violations.

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft and Michael Chertoff, who was head of the Justice Department's criminal division at the time the torture memos were prepared, were also criticized for not conducting a critical legal analysis of the memos, though neither was charged with misconduct. Ashcroft refused to cooperate with the investigation.

According to a January 5 memo Margolis sent to Attorney General Eric Holder, the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) issued a final report on July 29, 2009 and "concluded that former Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) attorneys John Yoo and Jay Bybee engaged in professional misconduct by failing to provide 'thorough, candid, and objective' analysis in memoranda regarding the interrogation of detained terrorist suspects."

Yoo specifically was found to have "committed intentional professional misconduct when he violated his duty to exercise independent legal judgment and render thorough, objective, and candid legal advice."

Bybee was found to have "committed professional misconduct when he acted in reckless disregard of his duty to exercise independent legal judgment and render thorough, objective, and candid legal advice."

The report says that Yoo believed that George W. Bush's Commander-in-Chief powers gave him the authority to unilaterally order the mass murder of civilians.

In the final version of the report, an OPR investigator questioned Yoo about what he referred to as the "bad things opinion," where Yoo discussed what the president could do during wartime.

"What about ordering a village of resistants to be massacred?" an OPR investigator asked Yoo. "Is that a power that the president could legally—"

"Yeah," Yoo said.

"To order a village of civilians to be [exterminated]?" the questioner replied.

"Sure," Yoo said.

But Margolis, who suggested Yoo and Bybee's flawed legal work was due to efforts to prevent another 9/11, said he was "unpersuaded" by OPR's "misconduct" conclusins and declined to endorse its findings.

An earlier version of the report rejected that line of reasoning.

"Situations of great stress, danger and fear do not relieve department attorneys of their duty to provide thorough, objective and candid legal advice, even if that advice is not what the client wants to hear," says the earlier draft of the report from OPR head Mary Patrice Brown. Her report, like the original draft, was sharply critical of the legal work that went into the torture memos and found that it lacked "thoroughness, objectivity and candor."

"OPR's own framework defines 'professional misconduct' such that a finding of misconduct depends on application of a known, unambiguous obligation or standard to the attorney's conduct," Margolis wrote in the 69-page memo. "I am unpersuaded that OPR has identified such a standard. For this reason...I cannot adpot OPR's findings of misconduct, and I will not authorize OPR to refer its findings to the state bar disciplinary authorities in the jurisdictions where Yoo and Bybee are licensed."

Despite dozens of cases highlighted in the report that showed Yoo twisted the law in order to advance the Bush administration's torture policy, Margolis said he did "not believe the evidence establishes [that Yoo] set about to knowingly provide inaccurate legal advice to his client or that he acted with conscious indifference to the consequences of his actions."

"While I have declined to adopt OPR's findings of misconduct, I fear that John Yoo's loyalty to his own ideology and convictions clouded his view of his obligation to his client and led him to author opinions that reflected his own extreme, albeit sincerely held, view of executive power while speaking for an institutional client," Margolis added. 

Margolis concluded his review, stating that "these memos contained some significant flaws.

"But as all that glitters is not gold, all flaws do not constitute professional misconduct," he wrote. "The bar associations in the District of Columbia or Pennsylvania can choose to take up this matter, but the Department will make no referral."

Margolis described himself in the memo as a "Department of Justice official who [beginning in the 1990s] has resolved challenges to negative OPR findings against former Department attorneys, most often in the context of proposed bar referrals."

Yoo's attorney, Miguel Estrada, said in an October 9, 2009 rebuttal to the final version of the report that "this perversion of the professional rules and myopic pursuit of Professor Yoo and Judge Bybee, can be explained only by a desire to settle a score over Bush administration policies in the war on terror."

"But policy disputes are for the ballot box, not for the bar," Estrada said. "Professor Yoo and Judge Bybee did nothing more than provide a good-faith assessment of the legality of a program deemed vital to our national security."

Estrada claims that Yoo and Bybee were well aware of what the "CIA wanted" in the areas of subjecting detainees to brutal torture techniques.

"Of course the attorneys at OLC knew what the CIA wanted, since they knew the agency was attempting to get information to thwart further terrorist attacks, and indeed OLC obviously was being asked to opine on specific interrogation techniques that it knew the CIA wished to use if it legally could do so," he said. 

OPR investigators noted that during the course of their four-and-a-half year probe, they were unable to obtain all of the evidence they needed. For example, they said that "most" of Yoo's emails they sought during the critical time period the memos were drafted prior to August 2002 "had been deleted and were not recoverable."

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, whose office released the report, said he will hold a hearing to discuss the findings "shortly."

In a statement accompanying the report, Conyers said the report makes clear that the torture memos "were legally flawed and fundamentally unsound."

"Even worse," Conyers said. "It reveals that the memos were not the independent product of the Department of Justice, but were shaped by top officials of the Bush White House. It is nothing short of a travesty that prisoners in US custody were abused and mistreated based on legal work as shoddy as this."

Senate Judicary Chairman Patrick Leahy also condemned the findings and announced that he will hold a hearing on the report's findings next Friday. In a statement, Leahy said the report "is a condemnation of the legal memoranda drafted by key architects of the Bush administration's legal policy, including Jay Bybee and John Yoo, on the treatment of detainees."

"The deeply flawed legal opinions proffered by these former OLC officials created a 'golden shield' that sought to protect from scrutiny and prosecution the Bush administration's torture of detainees in US custody. In drafting and signing these unsound legal analyses, OLC attorneys sanctioned torture, contrary to our domestic anti-torture laws, our international treaty obligations and the fundamental values of this country," Leahy added. "I have serious concerns about the role each of these government lawyers played in the development of these policies. I have said before that if the Judiciary Committee, and the Senate, knew of Judge Bybee's role in creating these policies, he would have never been confirmed to a lifetime appointment to the federal bench. The right thing to do would be for him to resign from this lifetime appointment."

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), which represents several detainees at Guantanamo and others who were tortured by military and CIA interrogators, called for Bybee to be impeached and for Holder to order a criminal probe headed by a special prosecutor.

In a statement, CCR said the report makes it "makes it abundantly clear that the decisions about the torture program took place at the highest level, and the damning description of the program further show that the torture memos were written to order by the lawyers from the Office of Legal Counsel who played a key role in creating the program."

"Ultimately Jay Bybee must be impeached, tried and removed from his seat as a federal judge on the 9th Circuit, but he should have the decency to resign immediately," CCR aaid. "We call on Attorney General Eric Holder to order these men criminally investigated by an independent special prosecutor who is allowed to follow the facts where they lead, all the way up the chain of command."

Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, which is largely responsible for bringing to light many of the revelations about the torture program described in the report, said, "The OPR report confirms the central role that the Office of Legal Counsel played in developing the Bush administration's torture program, and it underscores once again that the decision to endorse torture was made by the Bush administration's most senior officials."

"It also makes clear that the investigation initiated by the Justice Department last year, which focuses on 'rogue' interrogators, is too narrow," Jaffer added. "Interrogators should be held accountable where they violated the law, but the core problem was not one of rogue interrogators but one of senior government officials who knowingly authorized the gravest crimes. The Justice Department should immediately expand its investigation to encompass not just the interrogators who used torture but the senior Bush administration officials who authorized and facilitated it."

 


This work by Truthout is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.




Jason Leopold is the Deputy Managing Editor at Truthout. He is the author of the Los Angeles Times bestseller, News Junkie, a memoir. Visit newsjunkiebook.com for a preview. 




© 2010 truthout






--
Peace.

Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com
Amazon's: DEBATING THE HOLOCAUST: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton

__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___

Gilad Atzmon: To Believe or not to Believe

 


1. To Believe or not to Believe

DateSunday, February 21, 2010 at 11:03AM AuthorGilad Atzmon

Daily Telegraph's Andrew Gilligan doesn't believe the British Foreign Office:

 "The (British) Foreign Office denied claims that it had been tipped off about the use of British passports before the hit, insisting: "We only received details of the British passports a few hours before the [February 15] press conference held by the police in Dubai."

But the Irish foreign ministry has confirmed that it knew Irish passports had been used by the hit squad as early as February 4 – and it would seem surprising if Britain did not know at least that soon too.  .......
 
To read more:
 
 

2. Public Service: Watch Mohammad Bakri's Jenin Jenin

DateSunday, February 21, 2010 

 

Jenin Jenin depicts  the true story of Israeli colossal barbarism. There is no doubt left, the Jewish State is the ultimate enemy of humanity and humanism.  It also presents the Palestinian ordeal facing the Zionist evil. Clearly, surviving the Israeli occupation is nothing but heroism. 

Soon after Jenin Jenin  was released, after only three showings, the film  was banned by the Israeli Film Board  (2002), accusing the film of being libellous for calling itself a documentary despite documenting only one 'side' of the story. One may ask the Israeli Film Board whether they also ban holocaust documentaries for failing to present the Nazi or even the SS  'side' of the story.
 
To watch the film or read more:
 
 



--
Peace.

Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com
Amazon's: DEBATING THE HOLOCAUST: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton

__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___

David Brooks’s dilemma (and ours)

 


David Brooks's dilemma (and ours)

aletho | February 21, 2010 at 11:33 am | Categories: Supremacism, Social Darwinism, Wars for Israel | URL: http://wp.me/pIUmC-1uG

By Scott McConnel | February 21, 2010

Consider one of David Brooks' dilemmas. In last Friday's Times he wrote a pretty good column about the contemporary American power elite. As he described it, sixty and more years ago, blue blood WASPs ran America's financial institutions and foreign policy (something of a simplification, but let it pass), ethnic bosses ran the cities, and engaging working class drunks filed the newspaper stories. Now those critical sectors are run and staffed by the meritocracy, people who did well on the bubble tests and went on to succeed at elite universities. We have, Brooks explains, "opened up opportunities for women, African-Americans, Jews, Italians, Poles, Hispanics and members of every other group. "

Then he acknowledges the new regime isn't working out as well as expected. None of these major institutions is now doing its job adequately, and the country knows it. We need, Brooks concludes, to reevaluate our definitions of merit, and leadership because "very smart people make mistakes because they didn't understand the context in which they were operating." This is true, and for a newspaper column, a profound observation.

But there is a salient body of fact that Brooks elides, and therein lies a tale. While opportunities have opened up for women and all the non-Wasp groups Brooks mentioned, all groups have not rushed with equal force into the breach. If one takes, for example, the issue of Mideast diplomacy, it has been noted recently that most of the country's important Mideast diplomats are Jews, most of writers covering the Israel-Palestine conflict for the New York Times are Jewish, as are two of three of the president's top political advisers. Dig in a different direction, and one finds a similar kind of thing, as observed on this site, of the financial players engaged in selecting the next senator from New York.

There is no need to exaggerate the phenomenon, and indeed a need not to—outside of New York, there are plenty of rich Protestant power brokers, the South is important politically and Jews are seldom influential there, etc. But to say the least, the collapse of the WASP ascendancy has not been equally rewarding to all of the groups Brooks cites at the top of his column. Indeed for some of them, like Catholics, that collapse has probably coincided with a net reduction in cultural and political influence.

Brooks avoids mentioning this, as do virtually all writers. The reason is obvious: nearly any analysis, indeed any mention, of Jewish power is overburdened with sensitive historical associations. Unspecified but ominous reference to this history is the main polemical weapon Leon Wieseltier uses in his effort to take down Andrew Sullivan for his writing on Israel and Palestine. Some of Sullivan's arguments, Wieseltier asserts "have a sordid history"; Sullivan is one of those who proclaim "without in any way being haunted by the history of such an idea that Jews control Washington"; Sullivan adopts an explanation which "has a provenance that should disgust all thinking people." No need then to examine the truth or the untruth of Sullivan's argument, a vague allusion to history suffices. Criticism of Israel is tied to the modern history of European anti-semitism, and to an extensive bibliography of generally tendentious books about Jewish power, from Alphonse de Toussenel's Les Juifs, Rois de L'Epoch (published in 1845) forward. Of course this discourse was an auxiliary to the holocaust. About this Wieseltier (and the countless others who polemicize in this manner) are correct: discussions of Jewish power have sometimes had terrible consequences.

But where does that leave 21st century Americans? One example is the case of David Brooks, who clearly knows what he leaving out of his column about the American power elite. Brooks is Jewish, and a Zionist, and in no danger of being labeled an anti-Semite by Leon Wieseltier or anyone else. But still he is hesitant; presumably because he doesn't want to write something that either might encourage anti-Semitism, or (more likely considering his readership) enhance public understanding of the Israel lobby. At least the first of these motives is commendable. But the reticence has a consequence: when Brooks writes a column about the American power elite and its weaknesses, he needs to avoid one of the essential aspects of his subject. That can't really be satisfactory to him, or to his readers. It's a dilemma with no obvious solution to it.

Source

Add a comment to this post


--
Peace.

Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367

ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com

__._,_.___
.

__,_._,___