From news at freedomarchives.org Wed Sep 1 12:13:53 2010 From: news at freedomarchives.org (Anti-Imperialist News) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 09:13:53 -0700 Subject: [News] No American should be allowed to forget that the US destroyed the nation of Iraq Message-ID: The Anti-Empire Report September 1st, 2010 by William Blum http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer85.html Things which don't go away. Things the American government and media don't let go of. And neither do I. Iraq "They're leaving as heroes. I want them to walk home with pride in their hearts," declared Col. John Norris, the head of a US Army brigade in Iraq. 1 It's enough to bring tears to the eyes of an American, enough to make him choke up. Enough to make him forget. But no American should be allowed to forget that the nation of Iraq, the society of Iraq, have been destroyed, ruined, a failed state. The Americans, beginning 1991, bombed for 12 years, with one excuse or another; then invaded, then occupied, overthrew the government, killed wantonly, tortured ... the people of that unhappy land have lost everything ? their homes, their schools, their electricity, their clean water, their environment, their neighborhoods, their mosques, their archaeology, their jobs, their careers, their professionals, their state-run enterprises, their physical health, their mental health, their health care, their welfare state, their women's rights, their religious tolerance, their safety, their security, their children, their parents, their past, their present, their future, their lives ... More than half the population either dead, wounded, traumatized, in prison, internally displaced, or in foreign exile ... The air, soil, water, blood and genes drenched with depleted uranium ... the most awful birth defects ... unexploded cluster bombs lie in wait for children to pick them up ... an army of young Islamic men went to Iraq to fight the American invaders; they left the country more militant, hardened by war, to spread across the Middle East, Europe and Central Asia ... a river of blood runs alongside the Euphrates and Tigris ... through a country that may never be put back together again. "It is a common refrain among war-weary Iraqis that things were better before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003," reported the Washington Post on May 5, 2007. No matter ... drum roll, please ... Stand tall American GI hero! And don't even think of ever apologizing. Iraq is forced by the United States to continue paying reparations for its own invasion of Kuwait in 1990. How much will the American heroes pay the people of Iraq? "Unhappy the land that has no heroes ... No. Unhappy the land that needs heroes." ? Bertolt Brecht, Life of Galileo "What we need to discover in the social realm is the moral equivalent of war; something heroic that will speak to men as universally as war does, and yet will be as compatible with their spiritual selves as war has proved to be incompatible." ? William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience Perhaps the groundwork for that heroism already exists ... February 15, 2003, a month before the US invasion of Iraq, probably the largest protest in human history, between six and ten million protesters took to the streets of some 800 cities in nearly sixty countries across the globe. Iraq. Love it or leave it. Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 863-9977 www.Freedomarchives.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From news at freedomarchives.org Wed Sep 1 12:21:10 2010 From: news at freedomarchives.org (Anti-Imperialist News) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 09:21:10 -0700 Subject: [News] Bedouin Land Fight - Claim for Native Title Threatens Jewish State Message-ID: http://www.counterpunch.org/cook09012010.html September 1, 2010 Claim for Native Title Threatens Jewish State Bedouin Land Fight By JONATHAN COOK in Hura, the Negev Nuri al Uqbi?s small cinderblock home in a ramshackle neighbourhood of Hura, a Bedouin town in Israel?s Negev desert, hardly looks like the epicentre of a legal struggle that some observers say threatens Israel?s Jewish character. Inside, the 68-year-old Bedouin activist has stacks of bulging folders of tattered and browning documents, many older than the state of Israel itself, that he hopes will overturn decades of harsh government policy towards the Negev?s 180,000 Bedouin. For the past few months, Mr al Uqbi has been in court pursuing a case that has pitted his own expert witnesses against those of the state. Mr al Uqbi claims the right to return to a patch of 82 hectares in the Negev, close to the regional capital, Beersheva, that he says has belonged to his family for generations. But as both the government and the judge in the case, Sarah Dovrat, seem to appreciate, much more is at stake. Should Mr al Uqbi win his case, tens of thousands of Bedouin, who long ago had their properties confiscated, could be entitled to repossess their agricultural lands or seek enormous sums in compensation. Theoretically, it might also open the door to claims by millions of Palestinian refugees scattered across the Middle East. The Negev, constituting nearly two-thirds of Israel?s territory, has been almost entirely nationalised by the state, with the land held in trust for world Jewry. But the Bedouin have outstanding legal claims on nearly 80,000 hectares of ancestral property. Tom Segev, an Israeli historian, observed that the historical documents presented by Mr al Uqbi ?raise a fundamental question: Who does this country belong to?? The lawyers and witnesses in the case, Mr Segev added, were not just ?arguing over a plot of land. They are arguing over the justness of Zionism?. Such high stakes may explain why over the past few weeks, as Ms Dovrat has been considering her verdict, the authorities have sped up plans to plant over Mr al Uqbi?s land a ?peace forest?, paid for by an international Zionist charity called the Jewish National Fund (JNF). Until now the main obstacle in their way has been a small village, Al Araqib, re-established a decade ago by several Bedouin families who, rather than pursue Mr al Uqbi?s legal route, have simply reoccupied the land. Last week, about 300 Bedouin were again evicted when the police destroyed the village?s 40 homes for the fourth time in less than a month. Mr al Uqbi, a father of eight, said that five years ago ? after years of challenging the land confiscation with protests and appeals to the authorities ? he launched the lengthy legal process that has finally reached the Beersheva court. ?I realised that the authorities were simply waiting for me to die. When all the old people are gone, who will be left to come and testify?? Mr al Uqbi said his father, Sheikh Suleiman al Uqbi, and the other villagers were ?tricked? by the authorities in 1951. They were told that they would have to relocate ?temporarily? while military exercises were carried out in the area. Mr al-Uqbi, who was nine at the time, remembers the tribe being forcibly moved to a new site, next to Hura, where they have lived ever since, although their neighbourhood has never been recognised by the state. All these years later, Mr al Uqbi?s home, like his neighbours?, is still illegal, and they are all denied water, electricity and other services. The only option they had been offered to make their lives legal again, Mr al Uqbi said, was to move to one of seven government ?townships? set up in the 1970s. All are sunk at the very bottom of Israel?s social and economic tables. The families have refused, protesting that they would also have to renounce both their claim to their ancestral lands and a pastoral and agricultural way of life known by the Bedouin for centuries. The Uqbi tribe?s fate is far from unique. Tens of thousands of other Bedouin were also moved by the army and have been faced with a similar, stark choice. Today, 90,000 Bedouin, or half the Negev?s Bedouin population, live in unrecognised communities, according to a human rights group. Mr al Uqbi?s court case has set two noted Israeli geography professors in sharp opposition. The state?s position is represented by Ruth Kark, of Hebrew University in Jerusalem, who claims that the Negev Bedouin were nomads with no ties to the land. Instead, she argues, most of the Negev was considered ?mawat?, or dead, and its ownership passed to Israel in 1948 as the new sovereign ruler. On these grounds, the state has long classified the Bedouin as ?trespassers? and ?invaders?. But Mr al Uqbi?s expert, Oren Yiftachel, of Ben Gurion University in Beersheva, has countered that there was a well-established system of Bedouin land ownership and crop cultivation in the Negev long before Israel?s creation. He says Bedouin deeds ? though never formally recorded ? were recognised by the Ottomans, the British and even early Zionist organisations such as the JNF, which bought land from the Bedouin. A 1921 document from the public records office in London unearthed by Mr Yiftachel shows that Winston Churchill, the colonies minister, signed an agreement with Bedouin in the Beersheva area that exempted them from registering their lands and set up a special tribal court to settle land disputes. Mr al Uqbi has kept a large store of documents passed on to him, showing that his father cultivated crops on the land and paid regular tithes on the profits to the Ottoman and British authorities. He also has a copy of the treaty signed in 1948 between 16 Bedouin tribes, including the Uqbi, and the new Israeli army, pledging loyalty in return for a guarantee that they could continue living on their lands. Mr Yiftachel said the legal battles of the Bedouin should be compared to those waged by other indigenous peoples in countries such as Australia, Canada, South Africa, India and Brazil. ?Like them, they are fighting for recognition of ?native title?,? he said. Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His latest books are ?Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East? (Pluto Press) and ?Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair? (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net. Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 863-9977 www.Freedomarchives.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From news at freedomarchives.org Wed Sep 1 12:31:36 2010 From: news at freedomarchives.org (Anti-Imperialist News) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 09:31:36 -0700 Subject: [News] What does increased Palestinian political repression say about the prospects for peace? Message-ID: What does increased Palestinian political repression say about the prospects for peace? Palestine Center Brief No. 207 (1 September 2010) http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/ht/display/ContentDetails/i/15162/pid/2254 Policy Brief By Yousef Munayyer In the late 1980s, Robert Putnam?s argument about multi-level games in international bargaining kicked off a rich debate over domestic constraints. The thesis, in essence, is that interlocutors in bargaining may chose to lend extra power to political opponents to argue that domestic constraints tie their hands and prevent them from making concessions beyond a certain, often minimal, limit. This is not unlike what Binyamin Netanyahu did when he was elected Israeli prime minister in 2009, shortly after the inauguration of President Barack Obama. As President Bush left office, it was clear that the field day Israel enjoyed as it violently repressed the second Palestinian uprising and increased settlements at a pace unrivaled since the Menachem Begin era was over. Obama was largely suspected to be much more critical of Israels expansionist policies. So when elections came to pass in Israel and the leading Kadima party failed to put together a government, Netanyahu joined his Likud party in a coalition that staunchly favored expansionism and retaining the West Bank and Gaza. Netanyahu would argue that even temporarily halting the illegal construction of settlements would jeopardize his coalition, and that political suicide is an unreasonable request, even from the United States. Questions about core issues like Jerusalem could not even be muttered. But if Netanyahu can claim his hands are tied by demanding appreciation for his domestic political position, how has Mahmoud Abbas played his cards? Of course, the inclusion of the main opposition party, Hamas, into the Palestinian Authority (PA) was a costly proposition for Abbas. The reaction of the Western world (which provides the majority of the PA budget) and Israel (which collects tax dollars on the PAs behalf) after Hamas electoral victory in 2006, sent a clear message to Abbas: failure to play by the rules established by the West and Israel would mean life under siege. Abbas had only to look back at his predecessor, Arafat, who was besieged in his compound in Ramallah, or Hamas today, who are besieged in the Gaza Strip, if he chose anything other than the path of least resistance. So the appearance of tied hands, which was never an option for Abbas, gave way to the clenched fists of repression. With a right-wing Israeli government and an American administration that failed to get Netanyahu to fulfill a basic obligation, Abbas is now about to enter direct negotiations in spite of the adamant objections of the Palestinian public. Unsurprisingly, every Palestinian party, save Abbas? Fateh party (with a few individuals excluded), has rejected the call for direct negotiations with the Israeli government under the current conditions. In the last few weeks there have been noticeable upticks in politically repressive activity. Scores of Hamas affiliates have been detained or arrested, and a significant increase in these arrests was evident in the last two months, particularly the last two weeks. Yesterday, after a directive reminiscent of the famed closing scene in "Casablanca", scores, if not hundreds of Hamas affiliates - the usual suspects ? were detained following an attack that left four settlers dead. Leftist opposition parties like the Popular and Democratic Fronts for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP and DFLP), the Peoples party, the National Initiative and also prominent independents, organized a conference in Ramallah, the administrative center of the PA, last week in protest of engaging in the new announced direct talks with the Israelis. The conference was disrupted by hundreds of plain clothes members of the security apparatus. The organizers, who were alarmed by the repression of dissent, organized a press conference at a nearby television station, Al-Watan. Amira Hass, covering the happenings in Haaretz wrote thugs "grabbed cameras, beat the Watan photographer and prevented people from being interviewed (for example, by pushing photos of Abbas between the interviewee's and the camera)". Since then, PA leaders have responded by saying they had no connection to the crackdown and that an investigation would be launched into how it happened. Earlier this month, another independent news station was raided in Nablus and shut down. Likewise, the higher-ups claim to have had no knowledge of this and promised to initiate an investigation. This type of activity is not new. Numerous Palestinian protests in the West Bank were broken up during the attacks on Gaza in 2008-2009, and the same was true after the debacle over failing to further the Goldstone Report. So if lending political opponents limited leverage to create the appearance of tied hands is allowing Netanyahu to stand firmer to his demands, Abbas is in the inverse position. By cracking down on political opponents who reject further concessions to the Israelis (an effort supported and aided by the U.S. and Israel), Abbas is only affirming to the Israelis, Americans and Palestinians what all have long suspected: that his government is in no position to sign a binding and lasting agreement on behalf of Palestinian stakeholders. As Netanyahu used his domestic prerogatives to strengthen his position, Abbas enters negotiations in devastatingly weak position and the Israelis will be able to exploit to extract more concession from the Palestinian negotiating partner. The most recent evidence of this is Abbas' willingness to enter direct negotiations and caving to the Israeli whim that they can build settlements and talk peace at the same time after stating numerous times that he would do no such thing. Put into the perspective of history, dwindling legitimacy is a continuing trend. The Oslo Accords divorced the Palestinian leadership from much of the Palestinian diaspora, leaving the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) -- which turned inward into the PA -- representing only four million out of twelve million Palestinians (or roughly 25 percent). While some might not think it necessary that the Palestinian negotiating partner represent Palestinians living outside of the West Bank and Gaza, it is clear that such representation is vital when issues such as the question of refugees is so intimately tied to the resolution of this conflict. This makes diaspora Palestinians stakeholders in the outcome. But the PAs representation of even the 25 percent of Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza has been called into question in recent years, given the election of Hamas and the inter-Palestinian divide. The political repression of Hamas is evidence of that, and today, with the continued repression of independents and other non-Fateh party members, Abbas may be able to lay claim to representing 40 percent of the 25 percent of all Palestinians, or about 13 percent of all the stakeholders in the dispute. Continued episodes of political repression at the behest of Israel?s reputation, be it during the war in Gaza, the Goldstone debacle or most recently in the lead up to direct negotiations, only underscores the fundamental disparity in the position of the two negotiating partners and suggests that Palestinian domestic political disarray is likely to continue. When push comes to shove, Israel can easily manipulate this situation to claim their weak negotiating partner is unable to guarantee a lasting agreement and Israel would therefore only offer the Palestinians a figment of a state, lacking all sovereignty, while retaining security control over borders and airspace conditions unacceptable to Palestinians. Only a unified and representative Palestinian partner can extract the minimum necessary concessions from Israel for a viable end of conflict resolution, and currently, as the security apparatus continues to crack down on domestic Palestinian dissent, Israel watches keenly knowing that no such Palestinian partner is on the horizon. Yousef Munayyer is Executive Director of the Palestine Center. This policy brief may be used without permission but with proper attribution to the Center. The views in this brief are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Jerusalem Fund. Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 863-9977 www.Freedomarchives.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From news at freedomarchives.org Wed Sep 1 13:41:32 2010 From: news at freedomarchives.org (Anti-Imperialist News) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 10:41:32 -0700 Subject: [News] Another False Ending: Contracting Out the Iraq Occupation Message-ID: Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/Another-False-Ending-Cont-by-Bill-Quigley-100901-597.html September 1, 2010 Another False Ending: Contracting Out the Iraq Occupation By Bill Quigley and Laura Raymond. Bill and Laura work at the Center for Constitutional Rights. Another false ending to the Iraq war is being declared. Nearly seven years after George Bush's infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln, President Obama has just given a major address to mark the withdrawal of all but 50,000 combat troops from Iraq. But, while thousands of US troops are marching out, thousands of additional private military contractors (PMCs) are marching in. The number of armed security contractors in Iraq will more than double in the coming months. While the mainstream media is debating whether Iraq can be declared a victory or not there is virtually no discussion regarding this surge in contractors. Meanwhile, serious questions about the accountability of private military contractors remain. In the past decade the United States has dramatically shifted the way in which it wages war fewer soldiers and more contractors. Last month, the Congressional Research Service reported that the Department of Defense (DoD) workforce has 19% more contractors (207,600) than uniformed personnel (175,000) in Iraq and Afghanistan, making the wars in these two countries the most outsourced and privatized in U.S. history. According to a recent State Department briefing to Congress's Commission on Wartime Contracting, from now on, instead of soldiers, private military contractors will be disposing of improvised explosive devices, recovering killed and wounded personnel, downed aircraft and damaged vehicles, policing Baghdad's International Zone, providing convoy security, and clearing travel routes, among other security-related duties. Worse, the oversight of contractors will rest with other contractors. As has been the case in Afghanistan, contractors will be sought to provide "operations-center monitoring of private security contractors (PSCs)" as well as "PSC inspection and accountability services." The Commission on Wartime Contracting, a body established by Congress to study the trends in war contracting, raised fundamental questions in a July 12, 2010 "special report" about the troop drawdown and the increased use of contractors: "An additional concern is presented by the nature of the functions that contractors might be supplying in place of U.S. military personnel. What if an aircraft-recovery team or a supply convoy comes under fire? Who determines whether contract guards engage the assailants and whether a quick-reaction force is sent to assist them? What if the assailants are firing from an inhabited village or a hospital? Who weighs the risks of innocent casualties, directs the action, and applies the rules for the use of force? "Apart from raising questions about inherently governmental functions, such scenarios could require decisions related to the risk of innocent casualties, frayed relations with the Iraqi government and populace, and broad undermining of U.S. objectives." We'd like to pose an additional question to the ones listed above: when human rights abuses by private military contractors occur in the next phase of the occupation of Iraq, which certainly will happen, what is the plan for justice and accountability? This massive buildup of contractors in Iraq takes place at a time when the question of contractor immunity or impunity - is at a critical point. In one example, since 2004 our organization, the Center for Constitutional Rights, has been demanding- in US courts and through advocacy- that private military contractors who commit grave human rights abuses be held accountable. Contractors have responded by claiming something known as the "government contractor defense," arguing that because they were contracted by the US government to perform a duty they shouldn't be able to be held liable for any alleged violations that occured while purportedly performing those duties even when the alleged violations are war crimes. Contractors also argue that the cases CCR has brought raise "political questions" that are inappropriate for the courts to consider. These technical legal arguments have been the focus of human rights lawsuits for years and so far the question of the contractors' actual actions have not been reviewed by the federal courts. One case that should be watched closely this fall is Saleh v. Titan, a case brought by CCR and private attorneys against CACI and L-3 Services (formerly Titan), two private military contractors who military investigations implicated as having played a part in the torture at Abu Ghraib and other detention centers throughout Iraq. Saleh v. Titan was filed six years ago on behalf of Iraqis who were tortured and otherwise seriously abused while detained and currently includes hundreds of plaintiffs, including many individuals who were detained at the notorious "hard site" at Abu Ghraib. The plaintiffs in Saleh v. Titan, many of whom still suffer from physical and psychological harm, are simply seeking their day in court, to tell an American jury what happened to them. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia dismissed the case last September and the Supreme Court will be deciding whether or not to take the case this fall. This and a handful of other cases will signal how civil lawsuits on behalf of those injured or killed by contractors will be handled in US courts and decide whether victims of egregious human rights violations will obtain some form of redress and whether contractors who violate the law will be held accountable or be granted impunity. And how will human rights abuse by contractors be handled by criminal prosecutors in the coming years? Given its track record, it is safe to say that Iraqi civilians cannot count on the Department of Justice (DOJ) to prosecute many contractor abuse cases. The DOJ was given an "F" by Human Rights First in their 2008 report Ending Private Contractor Impunity: Report Cards on the U.S. Government Response since Nisoor Square. The DOJ has never pursued criminal prosecutions for contractor involvement in the crimes of Abu Ghraib; something CCR still demands today. Iraq's Parliament signed the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) in 2008 which gave it the power to prosecute some US contractors who commit crimes against Iraqi civilians. We can all hope Iraq's justice system will be able to overcome the political challenges involved in prosecuting US companies or US contractors and other foreigners in Iraq's courts. But even that will not stop the common practice of contractor companies simply pulling their employees out of the country when a crime happens. With these fundamental questions left unanswered and legal loopholes left open, thousands more armed contractors will soon be filing into Iraq, onto the streets where Iraqis work, study and go about their everyday lives. As Senator, Obama called for less dependence on private military contractors and for accountability when they committed human rights abuses. He told Defense News in 2008 that he was "troubled by the use of private contractors when it comes to potential armed engagements." Senator Clinton co-sponsored legislation to phase out the use of security contractors in war zones. As President, Obama pretends the occupation of Iraq is ending with the withdrawal of combat troops while he and Secretary of State Clinton quietly hire a shadow army to replace them. For more information about Saleh v. Titan, please see: http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/saleh-v-titan Author's Bio: Bill Quigley is a human rights lawyer and law professor at Loyola University New Orleans and Legal Director for the Center for Constitutional Rights. Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 863-9977 www.Freedomarchives.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From news at freedomarchives.org Wed Sep 1 14:59:14 2010 From: news at freedomarchives.org (Anti-Imperialist News) Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 11:59:14 -0700 Subject: [News] Haiti: Let the People Choose - Petition for the return of President Aristide Message-ID: HAITI ACTION COMMITTEE ALERT. PLEASE SIGN, CIRCULATE AND POST THIS IMPORTANT ON-LINE PETITION: TO: President Barack Obama and Mrs. Michele Obama: Jean-Bertrand Aristide, a former liberation theology priest, was elected by the people of Haiti as their president in 1990 and again in 2000 (by 60% and 92% of the vote respectively). Both times he was overthrown by military coups ? in 2004 directly by the US with backing from France and Canada. UN troops have occupied Haiti ever since, and thousands of people have been persecuted and even killed for demanding his return. After the earthquake, President Aristide told the media, from his forced exile in South Africa, that he wanted to come back immediately to be with his people. So far he has not been allowed home. On 22 May 2010, Haitian women meeting at the Democratic Debate at the Aristide Foundation for Democracy on May 22, 2010 launched a petition that has gathered over 20,000 signatures. They have invited people internationally to add their names. ?We, the women of Haiti, believe that in the wake of the void left by the earthquake of January 12, which devastated the Haitian capital of Port-au-Prince and much of the southwest, Jean-Bertrand Aristide has tremendous contributions to offer towards the rebuilding of the country [We] ask President Obama to return President Aristide and his family, without conditions, as required by Article 41 of the Haitian Constitution.? (full text below) Haitian women know what?s best for them and their families, and for the reconstruction of their communities and their country. We urge you to meet their demand so that President Aristide and his family can finally return home. TO SIGN THE ON-LINE PETITION, CLICK HERE Background On 8 March, International Women?s Day, 3,000 women at Camp Mesiane, Vilaj Solidarite, Champs de Mars, Place Boyer, Bonne Fille, Mais Gate, Site Soley and others issued a statement calling for the return of Jean-Bertrand and Mildred Aristide, and for women?s demands to be central in the reconstruction of Haiti. Soon another petition was circulating ? it already has more than 20,000 signatures. Jean-Bertrand Aristide, a former liberation theology priest, was elected by the people of Haiti as their president in 1990 and again in 2000 (by 60% and 92% of the vote respectively). Both times President Aristide was overthrown by military coups; in 2004 it was directly by the US with backing from France and Canada. UN troops have occupied Haiti ever since, and thousands have been persecuted and killed for demanding his return. After the earthquake, Aristide told the media, from his forced exile in South Africa, that he wanted to come back immediately to be with his people. So far he has not been allowed home despite the growing call for his return. Women and men are invited to sign in support of the women?s demands. Open Petition from Women of Haiti to President Barack Obama For the Return of former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide to Haiti "We, the women of Haiti, represent more that 52% of the Haitian population. For the past two centuries we have waged a long struggle to be able to exercise our political rights against tremendous opposition. Thanks to President Aristide in 1991, the exercise of women?s political rights began to be a reality. Jean-Bertrand Aristide is the only president of Haiti who worked to officially open up space for all Haitian women to participate in the political life of the country at every level. To advocate and educate for the respect of women?s rights, and to ensure that women?s voices were represented at every level of government, President Aristide created a Ministry of Women?s Affairs. At the same time beginning in 2001, President Aristide?s administration initiated social programs that benefited women and children, such as a national school lunch program, a national literacy program, the construction of hundreds of new public high schools and primary schools, and a public health program with health clinics in every communal section of the country. We, the women of Haiti, believe that in the wake of the void left by the earthquake of January 12, which devastated the Haitian capital of Port-au-Prince and much of the southwest, Jean-Bertrand Aristide has tremendous contributions to offer towards the rebuilding of the country. Women who have been participating in the democratic debates at the auditorium of the Aristide Foundation for Democracy each Saturday since the earthquake launch this petition and undertake to gather signatures of women throughout the country, from every department of Haiti to ask President Barack Obama to return President Aristide and his family, without conditions, as required by Article 41 of the Haitian Constitution. We ask women around the world who support the popular movement of Haiti to take up this petition, add their names, and send it to President Obama and his wife Michele Obama." This petition was launched by women meeting at the Democratic Debate at the Aristide Foundation for Democracy on May 22, 2010. Endorsement call issued by: Global Women Strike (GWS) and Women of Colour in the GWS www.globalwomenstrike.net Email: la at crossroadswomen.net Tel: 323-276-9833 Information: www.Haitisolidarity.net Email: action.haiti at gmail.com www.Aristidefoundation.net Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 863-9977 www.Freedomarchives.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From news at freedomarchives.org Thu Sep 2 11:10:55 2010 From: news at freedomarchives.org (Anti-Imperialist News) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 08:10:55 -0700 Subject: [News] Rabbi Ovadia Yosef: Palestinians should be Annihilated Message-ID: Rabbi Ovadia Yosef: Palestinians should be Annihilated 02. Sep, 2010 http://www.intifada-palestine.com/2010/09/rabbi-ovadia-yosef-palestinians-should-be-annihilated/ By Khalid Amayreh Who says there is no Jewish Nazism? Ovadia Yosef is the spiritual leader of hundreds of thousands of haredi orthodox Jews who give him automatic and nearly absolute allegiance. This week, he lashed out at the Palestinians, saying that they should all be annihilated. "May God destroy them with a plague," said the elderly rabbi. Yosef's remarks should be taken seriously as they seem to reflect a deepening grave phenomenon in the Israeli Jewish society. It is Jewish fascism, pure and simple. It is racist, virulent and violent. Unfortunately, with the exception of a few sporadic voices, which criticized the rabbi for saying what he said, the Israeli society generally ignored the manifestly racist remarks, either out of apathy, or because they concurred with him. Even Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu refused to directly and explicitly denounce the racist tirade, even though it was politically correct to do so in a certain sense. Instead he babbled a few words, saying that what Yosef said didn't represent the policy of the Israeli government. Shas, the political party whose ultimate political maker is Yosef, is an important coalition partner in the Netanyahu coalition. Interestingly, Yosef was not talking merely about Arab extremists, or terrorists, or other "demonized groups." He was rather talking about "all Palestinians" who he said should perish. Yosef is considered a Torah sage. Hence, it is unlikely that he was mincing words or making a slip of a tongue as some hasbara propagandists would claim to limit the damage generated by the racist utterance. I strongly believe the world, especially Jews, ought to treat such calls, which haven't been made for the first time, with utmost seriousness and gravity, because wishing Palestinians "a speedy annihilation" is effectively a call for genocide. Jews can't keep talking about the holocaust while fascism is taking root in their midst. They should realize, in case they don't that Nazism was sinful and evil, not because it was partly directed against Jews, but rather because it was inherently diabolical and nefarious. In the final analysis, Jewish fascism is no less evil than German fascism or any other fascism. There is no such a thing as a kosher genocide or a kosher holocaust, the kind of which this ignorant, hateful old man, who calls himself a Torah sage, is calling for. Didn't he learn when he was young the cardinal Biblical commandment, thou shall not murder? Yosef is by no means thunder on a clear day. He represents a widespread phenomenon in Israel and amongst Jews who increasingly harbor genocidal views toward the Palestinian people. This genocidal ideology, dubbed by much of the international media as merely "Jewish extremism," can be called Jewish Nazism, at least from the perspective of ideology. Several months ago, another rabbi, Mordechai Elyahu, who died recently, was quoted by his own son as saying that hundreds of thousands, even millions, of Palestinian civilians ought to be killed if largely innocuous projectiles from Gaza didn't cease. Other religious figures, who routinely invoke the issue of terror, readily quote from the Old Testament, justifying war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated callously by the Israeli occupation army against innocent civilians in occupied Palestine and Lebanon . One religious Zionist leader, a lady, didn't hesitate to call on the Israeli government and army to adopt Biblical-style genocide in dealing with the Palestinian issue. Needless to say, a Biblical-style solution means annihilating men, women, and children and not leaving a breathing thing. It is highly hypocritical and morally duplicitous for Israel and its supporters to urge Muslims to rein in their extremists while giving a near carte blanche to the likes of Ovadia Yosef to spew their hateful venom. When an Israeli soldier hears Yosef spew this Nazi-like venom, it is predictable how this soldier will internalize what he heard, especially in dealing with Palestinians. Then the innocent blood shed will not be the sole responsibility of the young brainwashed soldier, but also the responsibility of the rabbis who keep fostering hate and racism among their followers. When an Israeli murderer, a French Jewish immigrant, was asked by police a few years ago why he murdered an Arab taxi driver who had given him a ride to his home, the murderer said he thought non-Jewish lives were worthless and had no sanctity. He apparently had learned this during a homily at his neighborhood's synagogue. Yes, there are extremists everywhere. But in Israel, extremism is the mainstream, as successive elections have repeatedly shown. Today, in Israel humanists, human rights activists, academics who oppose racism and equality advocates are hounded and demonized. The gangs of fascism, who function under a variety of rubrics, don't sleep the night trying to vilify university professors and others who dare call the spade a spade. In short, terror and McCarthyism are in the air every where in a state that mendaciously calls itself "democratic." True, Muslims have extremist organizations such as al-Qaeda and other organizations which commit acts of mostly politically-motivated violence and terror. However, while the bulk of Muslims are decidedly against these groups, it is sad that we find most Jews are decidedly and enthusiastically supportive of Jewish racist and terror groups, especially the settler movement whose venomous ideology advocates genocide as the ultimate solution for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Ovadia Yosef will get away with impunity as he did numerous times before. In the final analysis, Yosef is the product of Israeli fascism which he epitomizes. However, Israel should also look back at similar experiences where fascism took its course and reached its evil potentials. We all know the rest of the story. Khalid Amayreh is a Journalist living in Dura, Hebron District, West Bank, occupied Palestine . He has BA in journalism: University of Oklahoma , 1981 MA in journalism, University of Southern Illinois , 1983 Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 863-9977 www.Freedomarchives.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From news at freedomarchives.org Sat Sep 4 13:02:46 2010 From: news at freedomarchives.org (Anti-Imperialist News) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2010 10:02:46 -0700 Subject: [News] An Al Quds day letter to Tony Blair. From Lauren Booth, in Iran. Message-ID: An Al Quds day letter to Tony Blair. From Lauren Booth, in Iran. By Lauren Booth 3 September 2010 Dear Tony, Congratulations on your political memoir becoming an instant bestseller. I'm in Iran and have the only copy in the country. I can tell you, its so fiercely fought over, it's worth its weight in WMD's. Note to Random House; have 'A Journey' translated into Farsi and Arabic asap, it'll fly off the shelves in this part of the world. Tony, yesterday I went the Al Quds day protest in Tehran. You may have heard of it? It's the rally where Iranians gather to protest against Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine, including the Holy city of Jerusalem. I'm being sarcastic by asking if you've heard of Al Quds day, because I know you have. It is your very worst nightmare right? After all Tehran is the place where politics and Islam intertwine. Personally I've never understood this fear of 'political Islam' it seems to me that religious people should always be educated on world events rather than kept in ignorance. Like say, Mid West Christian Zionists in the US The kind of folk who can't find their home city on a map of their state but re certain they hate Islam even if their not sure whether its a type of curry or a foreign make of veh-ic-ule. Anyway, yesterday, I stood in the midst of more than one million Iranian Muslims all chanting in unison 'Marg Bar Isre-hell!' and 'Marg Bar Am-ri-ca!' You know what that means Tony I'm sure ; 'Down with Israel, down with America'. The men, women and children around me withstood a day of no water and no food (it's called Ramadan, Tony, it's a fast). Coping with hunger and thirst in the hundred degrees heat, as if it were nothing. They can withstand deprivation in the Muslim world. Here in Iran they feel proud to suffer in order to express solidarity with the people of Palestine. It';s kind of like the way you express solidarity with America only without illegal chemical weapons and a million civilian deaths. Some mothers at the rally wept, not out of hatred for 'the West' but out of empathy for the mothers of Rafah, Khan Younis, Nablus and Jenin. Do you recognise these place names Tony, as Middle East peace envoy you really should. Israel has massacred children in all of these cities in recent years. Didn't you know? Today when the streets of London reverberate with cries of 'Allahuakbar!' and 'Down Down Israel.' Christians and Jews will join the thunderous cries of 'Down Down Israel, marching shoulder to shoulder with the 'political' Muslims you say you fear so much. Perhaps you believe that I am in danger in Iran, especially on a day like Al Quds. Well here again Tony, you've been fed and have consumed in its entirety, a massive lie. The lie that says when Muslims express an opinion in groups, in public, it is always spurred on by hatred of 'us' infidels. As if all protests that are led by Muslim communities are a kind of long held grudge against the Crusades. Perhaps they should be more, not less angry here than they are Tony. Because having read the postcript to your bestseller its clear you are on a modern Crusade. The 'conflict' between Palestine and Israel is according to you all about religion and has nothing at all to do with the ethnic cleansing of the Arab population, nor the degredation of those who remain beneath the boots of their Israeli occupiers. You say that Arabs have and always will see 'Jews' as enemies. For God's sake Tony do your history. And if you're going to run a 'Faith Foundation' then better gen up on Islam 101 don't you think? Did your pals in Tel Aviv forget to tell you how many thousands of Jews lived in Historic Palestine in harmony with their Arab neighbours before 1948? Do you really not know that even today tens of thousand of Jews reside contentedly in Iran? I've sat with Muslim families, those whose children have been burned by Israeli/US phosphorous bombs. Those who are still suffering hunger due to the Israel siege of Gaza. Those who have lived through the early days of sanctions against Iran when they needed food vouchers just to live. And every single Muslim in these suffering families has the same message ; 'We don't hate anyone for their race or their religion. We cannot hate Jews they are in our holy book it is against the teachings of the Koran.' But Tony let me ask you this. Why should any people, Muslim or otherwise, be expected to put up with this kind of constant threats from you and your bosses in Tel Aviv and Washington? Do you have any understanding of what it is like to live in Gaza? Under siege, attacked with chemical weapons, your children's schools razed to the ground by Israeli missiles, your hospitals shelled, your electricity limited, your water undrinkable? Actually Tony I think you are a sypathetic person. I actually think that you do feel twinges of pain at the hardships suffered by millions in the Middle East as a direct result of your support for Israel. Then you put that feeling to one side, because on a fundamental level - you think 'they' deserve it don't you? In your book you say you knew full well how many Beirut homes were flattened, how many civilians died in Lebanon in 2006. Yet you dismiss Lebanese rage about Israeli occupation of 'Shebas Farm' as being an irrelevance, about a 'tiny' amount of land. You cannot see it as part of the constant pressure on Lebanese society as a whole by their heavily armed aggressive Israeli neighbour. You see it as: 'Israel is attacked. Israel strikes back.' As if Israel lives in placid peace, being kindly to all around it in between these massacres. As other world leaders came out to demand Israel immediately cease its 2006 bombing raids on Lebanese cities, you stayed silent. 'If I had condemned Israel' you say in your book 'I would have been more than dishonest. It would have undermined my world view.' Your world view is that Muslims, are mad, bad, dangerous to know. A contagion to be contained. Your final chapter is a must read here in the Middle East Tony, congratulations! For it lays out the 'them' and 'us' agenda of your friends in Washington and Tel Aviv. In the final chapter you say; 'we need a religious counter attack' against Islam. And by 'Islam' you mean the Al Quds rallies, the Palestinian intifada (based on an anti Apartheid struggle Tony, NOT religious bigotry), against every Arab who fails to put their arms in the air as the F16 missiles rain on their homes and refugee camps andsing a rousing chorus of 'Imagine all the people...' When you say 'extremism' must be 'controlled and beaten' you mean that you and your kind of morally bankrupt (but filthy rich) world leader wants control over the rising solidarity spreading through the Ummah and being joined by activist of all creeds on the streets of Paris, London, Bradford, Rome. 'Not only extremism must be defeated' you have written but 'the narrative' ' has to be assailed.' Iran is indeed the place where Islamic tradition meets political action. They are highly aware of the history of this region, the wrongs perpetrated by Israel against Palestine and the political machinations of the US and the UK governments to isolate them.. All thing considered and nice as the people have been during my stay. I wouldn't recommend coming over on a book tour though... Lauren Booth Broadcaster and Journalist Mail on Sunday Press TV, UK Article originally appeared on Gilad Atzmon (http://www.gilad.co.uk/). Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 863-9977 www.Freedomarchives.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From news at freedomarchives.org Tue Sep 7 10:58:03 2010 From: news at freedomarchives.org (Anti-Imperialist News) Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 07:58:03 -0700 Subject: [News] =?iso-8859-1?q?Khaled_Mesh=92al_lays_out_new_Hamas_policy_?= =?iso-8859-1?q?_direction?= Message-ID: Khaled Mesh?al lays out new Hamas policy direction Sunday, 05 September 2010 00:33 http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/articles/middle-east/1491-khaled-meshal-lays-out-new-hamas-policy-direction This is the most recent interview with Khaled Mesh'al who, since 1996, has been the Chairman of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) Political Bureau. After the assassination of Hamas leader Abdul ?Aziz Rantisi in 2004, Mesh'al became the overall leader of the movement. In this interview with the Jordanian Al-Sabeel newspaper in July 2010, Mesh'al lays out the policy direction of Hamas on a number of critical issues: negotiations with Israel, international relations, Jews, Christians, women, among other issues. The interview ? which was conducted over many hours ? has been received as significant in the Arab world and is regarded as a clear indication of positions that Hamas wants to pursue, especially with regard to future attitudes towards Israel. It is an important piece articulating, in their own words, the perspectives of Hamas' leaders, and is critical reading for all observers of the Middle East, and all policy-makers for whom the Middle East is important. The Afro-Middle East Centre (AMEC) translated this interview into English to make it accessible to a wider audience, and allow for greater understanding ? especially in the English-speaking world ? of the political perspectives of a movement which has become one of the most important role-players in the Middle East today. On negotiations Do you reject, in principle, negotiations with the enemy? If negotiations could not be conducted with the enemy, is it possible to do so with a friend? Does Hamas reject the principle of negotiations outright, or do you reject its form, conduct and results? This is definitely a thorny and sensitive issue, and many people prefer to avoid any discussion of it, and tend not to take any clear position on it for fear of negative reactions or misinterpretations. The sensitive and critical nature of this issue is compounded by the dark shadows that are cast as a result of the bitter experiences of Palestinian-Israeli and Arab-Israeli negotiations. People are influenced by these experiences, and are extremely sensitive towards the idea of "negotiations", particularly with regard to the collective mind and mood of the nation. There is now, in many quarters, loathing for and aversion towards the concept of negotiations. This is quite understandable and natural, but this does not preclude tackling the issue thoroughly and sorting through matters carefully so as to set every detail into context, God willing. It is indisputable that negotiating with the enemy is not rejected, either legally or rationally; indeed, there are some stages during a conflict among enemies when negotiations are required and become necessary. Both from a rational perspective and from legal logic, it is true that negotiations as a means and a tool may be acceptable and legitimate at certain points in time, and rejected and prohibited at other times; that is, it is not rejected in itself nor is it rejected all the time. In Islamic history, in the era of the Prophet (peace be upon him), and in subsequent ages ? at the time of Salahuddin [Saladin], for example ? negotiation with the enemy was conducted, but within a clear framework and a specific philosophy, within a context, vision, rules and regulations governing this negotiation. This is in stark contrast to the wretched approach taken by those negotiation professionals who consider it a way of life and the sole strategic option in the service of which all other options are ruled out. If resistance itself, honourable and esteemed as it is, is a means and not an end, does it make sense to make negotiations an end, an only option and a constant approach, rather than being a means and a tactic to fall back on when necessary and when the context requires it? The concept in the Qur'an is clear, when God Almighty says: "And if they incline to peace, incline (you also to peace), and trust in God." This implies that negotiation is acceptable, reasonable and logical for us as advocates of a just cause when the enemy is forced to resort to it, when they come to us ready for negotiation and for paying the price, and to respond to our demands. However, if we seek it desperately and consider it our only option, then we will be the ones paying the price. Those who are forced to negotiate are those who usually pay the price. Hence God Almighty says in another verse: "Do not weaken and call for peace when you have the upper hand." We go back to the first verse: "And if they incline to peace, incline (you also to peace), and trust in God", which is preceded by God Almighty's saying: "Prepare for them what you can of power, including steeds of war to terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy." What does this mean? It means that possessing power and its means is what drives the enemy forcibly towards peace, and that the enemy's inclination to peace and negotiation is a result of jihad, resistance and the possession of power. Those who consider negotiation without resistance and without any power cards are virtually heading for surrender. In the science of strategy and conflict management, negotiation is an extension to war, and a form of war management. What you obtain by negotiating at the table is a product of your condition on the ground, and an outcome of the balance of power in the field. If you are vanquished in the field, you will certainly be defeated in the negotiations as well. Just as war requires a balance of power, negotiations and peace each require a balance of power, for peace cannot be made when one party is powerful and the other weak; otherwise, this will be surrender. The United States did not make peace with Japan and Germany after World War II, but, rather, imposed on them surrender and a pact of compliance and submission. In short, peace is made by the powerful and not the weak; negotiations may serve the powerful but not the weak. The situation regarding the conflict with Israeli occupation is different, as this is a case of a body alien to the region, and which came from outside and imposed itself on a land and a people, drove people away from their land, and replaced them with an immigrant diaspora from all over the world. This is, therefore, a complex situation which must be dealt with delicately. When objective conditions and requirements for negotiation are available, especially the existence of a situation where sufficient balance and relative equilibrium are present; when there is proven need for it at the appropriate time ? without hurry or delay ? then it could be one of the options we resort to as a mechanism, means and tool, not as an objective or an end, not as a permanent condition or a strategic option. Negotiation is a tactical instrument, and just as war is not a permanent condition and has its requirements and conditions, so too does negotiation. With this clear view of negotiations, and when it is exercised with great caution and under strict rules at the right time, it will be acceptable and useful in the context of conflict management; otherwise it will lead only to surrender and submission to the enemy's hegemony and conditions, and will result in the neglect of rights and a continuous decline in the level of demands and political positions. Unfortunately, the Arab and Palestinian condition regarding this issue is ? mostly ? very bad; it is a vulnerable position, with no bargaining chips, support, manoeuvre or margin for ambiguity. The Palestinian ranks are fully exposed, so they go to peace declaring it to be their only strategic option. When your enemy is aware that you have no option but to negotiate, and you talk of nothing but peace, and have no other option, what will force them to make concessions to you? The Palestinian negotiators say: "Negotiation is the option, the course and the only plan." They coordinate security with the enemy and implement the "Road Map" and its security requirements freely, with Israel offering nothing in return. What is there to force Olmert or Netanyahu to grant the Palestinians anything? Negotiation in the Palestinian case is out of its objective context; it is, merely from the perspective of political logic, lacking resistance and not based on the necessary power balance. The Vietnamese ? for instance ? negotiated with the Americans as the latter were retreating; thus negotiations were useful for turning the last page on American occupation and aggression. You are successful in negotiation and in imposing your conditions on the enemy depending on the number of power cards you have on the ground. Hence, for negotiation not to be a risky and onerous process, you need to make clear to the enemy ? not only in words, but in deed as well ? your message that you are open to all options. The negotiator cannot succeed without basing his position on the multiplicity of options, meaning that, inasmuch as you are ready for negotiation, you are also ready and able to go to war. If negotiation reaches a deadlock, you must be prepared to go to war, attrition or resistance; otherwise negotiation will be useless. We must remember that negotiations during the wars of old were often conducted on the battlefield, and the negotiators would either reach a solution, or resume the war. Negotiation is a tool and a tactic in the service of a strategy and is not a strategy in itself; it is not a substitute for a strategy of resistance and confrontation with the occupation. Negotiation needs to be based on unity at a national level. If one party sees benefit in a certain step towards negotiation, and pursues such a decision alone and without referring to the people, they will be placing themselves in a difficult situation and will grant the enemy an opportunity which it will certainly use against them. This could also cause the negotiators to make significant concessions for fear that they might later be forced to acknowledge the failure of their negotiation option; thus they prioritise their own interest over the national one in order not to be exposed in front of their people and others. Negotiation has its specific spaces and domains and is not an absolute option in all matters. There are issues that should not be negotiated, such as the critical constants. Negotiation is a mechanism and a tactic within specific margins and domains; no one in their right mind would negotiate on everything, especially not on the principles. In business, negotiation is often on profits and not on business assets. Unfortunately, the current experience, especially of the Palestinian negotiations, is that all these rules have been abandoned. In all honesty and courage I say: negotiation is not absolutely prohibited or forbidden, be it from a legal or political perspective, or in view of the experiences of the nation and humanity, or the practices of the resistance movements and revolutions throughout history. However, it must be subject to equations, regulations, calculations, circumstances, contexts and proper management, for without these it becomes a negative and destructive tool. Regarding the Palestinian case, we say that negotiation with Israel today is a wrong choice. A proposal was put forward to Hamas directly to negotiate with Israel but we refused. Some from among the Hamas leadership received a proposal to meet with a number of Israeli leaders, some of them in power, such as [Israeli Deputy Prime Minister and Shas Party leader] Eli Yishai, and others belonging to the peace camp. Hamas has rejected these offers. Negotiations today ? under the current balance of power ? is in the service of the enemy, and does not serve the Palestinian side. The conflict on the ground has not developed in a manner that has forced the Zionist enemy to resort to negotiation; it refuses to this day to withdraw from the land, and does not recognise Palestinian rights. Thus negotiation in such conditions is a kind of fruitless gamble. In light of our weakness and the imbalance of power, Israel is using negotiations as a tool to improve its relations and polish its image before the international community, and using it to gain time so as to create new facts on the ground through settlement-building, expelling people, Judaising of Jerusalem and the demolition of its neighbourhoods. It also uses negotiations as a cover to distract attention from its crimes and to water down Palestinian demands. Israel is exploiting negotiations to normalise its relations with the Arab and Islamic world and to penetrate it, and to distort the nature of the conflict; Israel is the sole beneficiary of the negotiations as they stand. Negotiations under the existing imbalance of power is a subjugation of the Palestinian side to the requirements, conditions and dictates of the Israeli occupation; this is not an equal process, for just as there is currently no parity in the field of confrontation, there is also no parity around the negotiating table. The issue of recognising the Zionist entity raises much debate. There is also talk of legal recognition in contrast to realistic or pragmatic recognition. What is the position of Hamas on this issue? Our position regarding the acknowledgement of the occupation's legality is clear and settled, and we do not hide or conceal it. Recognising Israel has been laid down as a condition for the international community opening up to Hamas, and so this has become an obstacle in our way. But we did not care, and we showed determination to withstand this challenge, as recognition means legitimising the occupation and conferring legitimacy upon Israel's aggression, settlement, Judaisation, murders, arrests and other crimes and atrocities against our people and our land. This is unacceptable according to international law and human values, not to mention our religion. It is unacceptable to legitimise occupation and theft of land. Occupation is a crime, theft is a crime, and should not be legitimised under any circumstances. These are uncontroversial concepts in the common human understanding, and so is the conception of the Palestinian victim whose land was usurped. This is an issue tied to our human existence, and it contrasts with recognising the legitimacy of occupation and usurpation, not to mention the patriotic and religious feelings, cultural affiliation and historical presence, which all link us to this land. Others have fallen into this trap due to their ineffectiveness and submission to external pressures, and they thought that bowing to these conditions and pressures may make it easier for them to advance in their political agenda. However, it was practically demonstrated that they have paid an exorbitant price for an illusion. They were wrong in their logic of interests, and wrong in their logic of principles. We reject the issue of recognition in both the legal and pragmatic senses. There is a difference between saying there is an enemy called Israel on the one hand, and acknowledging its legitimacy on the other; the former is not really recognition. In short, we refuse to recognise the legitimacy of Israel because we refuse to recognise the legitimacy of occupation and theft of land. For us, this principle is clear and definitive. Are you not surprised at the Israeli and international insistence on the question of your recognising Israel? Is this not, in some way, a sign of weakness, as Israel sounds like it is questioning its own existence, and demanding that others recognise the legitimacy of this existence? Without a doubt, the enemy is concerned about the future of its entity, particularly in light of the latest developments. Its psychology is that of a thief and a criminal who ultimately feels like an outlaw lacking legitimacy, no matter how strong he may become. The demand for recognition is certainly a sign of weakness, an expression of an inferiority complex, lack of confidence in the future of this entity, a feeling that it is illegitimate and still rejected by the peoples of the region as alien, and that the mere presence of a steadfast Palestinian people is a practical expression of the rejection of the Zionist entity. Yet, there is another dimension, which is the feeling of superiority. This is the logic by which Western nations deal with third world countries. The Zionists adopt the same logic based on military supremacy, and feel that they are the party that has the right to dictate terms to the others, including dictating preconditions for any negotiations. Some Palestinian and Arab parties have, unfortunately, responded to this logic. This is unacceptable imbalance. In our dialogues with foreign delegations, we hear them constantly talking about the conditions of the Quartet; some of them introduce revised conditions to make it easier for us to accept them. We refused all conditions on principle, and refused discussing them even in the context of seeking revised formulas. We reject the principle of conditions, for it suggests that there are two levels of human beings, and one party can dominate the other, one party having the upper hand and the other the lower. Our humanity, dignity and self-respect state that we are on par with others even if they are militarily stronger; hence we refuse to be dealt with through preconditions. Unfortunately, one of the mistakes causing them to persist in this approach is that some people have accepted these conditions, including the issue of recognition. They then made another mistake by not exchanging the recognition of Israel for the recognition of Palestinian rights, but preferred, rather, to be recognised themselves. This is a significant flaw added to the original one, namely recognition! It is preposterous to recognise Israel in return for its recognition of the Palestine Liberation Organisation or another movement instead of recognising the Palestinian people or state or rights. This implies that you have swapped public interest for personal interests, and have swapped the grand national objective for a petty partisan one. As we say this, we emphasise our rejection of the issue of recognition, regardless of the price. Therefore, in our conversations with those Western delegations [who ask us to recognise Israel], we tell them: "Although we are eager to communicate with you and open up to the world, we are not begging or looking for Western recognition of Hamas. This does not concern us. Our legitimacy stems from the Palestinian people; the ballot boxes; Palestinian democracy; the legitimacy of struggle, sacrifice and resistance; and our Arab and Islamic depth. We are not looking for legitimacy from abroad; what we are seeking to achieve and obtain is recognition of Palestinian rights and the right of our people to freedom, and deliverance from the occupation, and the right to self-determination. This will not be in exchange for recognition, because recognition is ultimately an acknowledgement of the legitimacy of occupation, aggression and land theft. In your opinion, why do the international community and the Israelis reject the long-term truce proposed by Hamas? This rejection by the Zionist entity, the US administration, and other international parties is due to several reasons. The first reason: the logic of power, superiority and hegemony of these parties. They believe that their superior power allows them to impose what they want on us, and to consider us Arabs and Palestinians as the defeated party which has no choice but to sign the instrument of surrender in the same way as Germany and Japan did in the aftermath of World War II, and not to provide solutions and ideas such as the truce. The second reason: they see Arab and Palestinian parties making more enticing offers. So how would they respond to a truce offer when others offer to recognise Israel in return for a solution based on the borders of 1967, with a willingness to negotiate on the details of that solution, namely: borders, Jerusalem and the right of return? The third reason: the experience of the Americans, the Zionists and others with other parties in the region tempts them to conclude that further pressure will drive us into a state of desperation as happened with others; they tried the policy of pressure and extortion with others and it succeeded. This prompts them to say: "Let us try the same thing with Hamas, for it may submit like the others did." Add to that the fact that some Arabs and Palestinians ? regrettably ? advise them: "Surround Hamas, financially and politically, and incite against them; do not open up to them directly, maintain your conditions, and do not hurry. Hamas will ultimately succumb!" These reasons, and perhaps others, prompt them to reject the truce offer. In our conversations with Western delegations we tell them: "Yes, the positions of others are easier, and ours is more difficult; yet our advantage is that, when we make an offer or take a position, we strive to ensure its applicability on the ground and its potential to win the confidence of the Palestinian people and the Arab and Islamic public, and it is so only when it does not run counter to the national constants, rights and interests of the people." As to the positions of others in the Palestinian arena, they are easy but lack the approval of the majority of the Palestinian people, its national forces and intellectual elites. What is the practical value of these positions, and the value of reaching agreements and finding solutions with some leaderships that were rejected by the majority of the people? The Oslo Agreements were imposed in the past, and they failed because they were unfair and did not meet the aspirations of our people, and thus remained alien to the Palestinian and Arab reality. So we are aware that they will be forced to finally deal with the vision of Hamas and the vision of forces and leaders committed to national constants. We tell them: "If you think that you are able to achieve success in the region through other schemes, try and you will reach a dead-end." It might be easy for the major powers to incline towards easy solutions with certain leaders and rulers, without considering the importance of these solutions being convincing and satisfactory to the people. These powers overlook the fact that reconciliation with the leaders and governments alone is temporary and short-lived, and does not create stability in the region ? no matter the extent of pressure and oppression exercised against the people. However, the success of any enterprise is realised only when the people are convinced and believe it to be satisfactory and equitable, even if temporarily. Some in the West are beginning to realise the importance of this perspective and are, consequently, developing their positions ? albeit slowly ? in the direction of dealing with Hamas. There are still obstacles in the effort to translate this limited development into real and serious steps. We, in turn, are not in a hurry because what matters for us is not our role but, rather, our commitment to our people's rights and interests. Hamas and the Jews Is the resistance of Hamas directed against the Zionists as Jews or as occupiers? We do not fight the Zionists because they are Jews; we fight them because they are occupiers. The reason behind our war with the Zionist entity and our resistance to it is the occupation, rather than differences in religion. Resistance and military confrontation with the Israelis was caused by occupation, aggression and crimes committed against the Palestinian people, and not because of the differences in religion and belief. We are well aware that Israel invokes religion to advance on the battlefield, as well as employing historical grudges, distorted texts, legends and myths, and religious sentiments in the battle against the Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims. Even the leaders of secular Zionism had used religion since the beginning of the Zionist movement and exploited it politically; and the Zionist entity was originally based on religion and racism. Despite all this, our difference with them in religion is not what created a situation of war and resistance against them; we fight them because they are occupiers. For us, religion is a cornerstone to our lives, belonging and identity, our culture and our daily actions; it is the energy that promotes patience and steadfastness, and gives rise to more sacrifice and generosity. This is a tremendous energy in the face of injustice, aggression and the powers seeking to harm our people and our nation. But we do not make of religion a force for engendering hatred, nor a cause or a pretext for harming and assaulting others, or grabbing what is not ours, or encroaching on the rights of others. Hamas and International Relations Are you satisfied with your achievements in international relations? What is the position of these relations in the thinking, programmes and priorities of Hamas? International relations in the political thinking of Hamas has several dimensions. The first dimension: conviction that the Palestine battle, in one of its aspects, is the battle of humanity against Israeli injustice and oppression, and against the racist Zionist scheme targeting the world and humanity as a whole and threatening the interests of peoples and nations, since its evil and dangers are not limited to Palestine and the Palestinians and the Arabs and Muslims. The second dimension: the necessity of promoting our just cause and winning more friends who support our legitimate right to resist occupation and aggression. It has been shown that there is still good in the human conscience, and that it could be awakened and moved in our favour if we present our case well, and strive to reveal the truth of the Zionist entity. The case of breaking the Gaza blockade, and the success in winning a large number of sympathisers with this issue through the movement of ships to Gaza is an example of the importance of this dimension. We recall and emphasise that the confrontation with the Zionist entity ? through the people and resistance, as was the case with the Gaza War, south Lebanon and the flotilla, is what exposes the ugly face of this entity, and not negotiations and meetings with it as these polish its image and cover up its reality and crimes. The third dimension: just as Israel encircles and haunts us on the international stage, we too must follow it in all international forums, and not leave the stage to it. Unfortunately, the official Arab and Islamic side has fallen far short of this objective, and its true role has been absent. However, what mitigated this deficiency are the efforts of the Palestinian, Arab and Islamic communities who recently moved more effectively on the international arena and scored significant results and important breakthroughs. They helped win friends and supporters for the Palestinian cause and Arab and Islamic issues, and worked so as to expose the ugly and ruthless face of Israel, whose aggressive and brutal behaviour has shocked human conscience and sentiments as it runs counter to the ethical values of Western peoples and the peoples of the world. These communities have also contributed, through their activities, to the pursuit of Israel legally and judicially. The fourth dimension: we are interested in forging a network of relations, strong and effective at all levels, international as well as Arab and Islamic. We have created in our group a special section for international relations because we consider it a factor of strength, opening up and winning international support for the cause and the movement. The fifth dimension: the forging of international relations starts here, from within the region, for here is the plant, and the harvest is there in the West, while hard work is required in both. This means that the primary basis for achieving a breakthrough and success in international relations is strength on the ground, and being ingrained in it, united around our people and our nation, practising resistance and resoluteness. [With such a foundation], the world will respect us and realise that there will be no peace or stability in the region unless they deal with us and accord us the consideration we deserve, respect our interests, rights and legitimate demands, and retreat from their current policies of bias towards Israel and disregard for the Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims. We have scored successes in this field, thanks to Allah. Yet the road is long and we have a long way ahead of us. We are relatively satisfied with the achievements, considering the scale of obstacles facing us and being thrown in our path. It should not be forgotten that the level of the relations and the yield achieved does not depend on us alone, but also on the other side. This is how political relations, and human ones too, take place. If we are to measure the yield from the efforts we exerted, compared to the degree of Zionist penetration and influence in the world, the gap will seem wide. Western policy, which views Israel as its natural extension and chooses to support it without limit, the weakness of Arab performance and diplomacy, and the incitement by Palestinian and Arab parties against the movement have, no doubt, impacted on the extent of success and achievement. We currently have a host of official relations on the international level, such as the relations with Russia, some Latin American countries and Asian and African nations. We also have other official international relations, some are covert in view of the conditions of the other party, and indirect relations through former officials who communicate with us with the knowledge of the officials in their countries, such as is the case with the United States of America and others. All of this is an important development, and it will not be long, God willing, until this develops into open and consistent official relations with the movement. We are not talking here about international relations from the viewpoint of eagerness, desperation, urgency and a search for partisan glory; rather, we are forging these relations and following up on them with poise and self-respect, with the purpose of reaping gains for the Palestinian cause rather than for narrow partisan ones. Hamas, Alignments and Axes In recent years, the Arab arena has witnessed a number of different axes and alignments. Hamas has been classified by some as being within the axis of rejection. How do you view this situation dominating the Arab political scene; where do you see yourself with regard to it; and do you believe it to be in the interests of the nation? I will answer this from three angles. First angle: There is a reprehensible gathering, and another gathering which is praiseworthy. The reprehensible gathering is an assembly, for example, on the basis of race or narrow national ideas in opposition to other people; it invokes factors of categorisation and internal alignment on the level of the country or the nation. But if people rally to do good, to support the Palestinian people, resist the Zionist enemy, challenge normalisation, resist the efforts of enemies to infiltrate the nation, confront American hegemony and the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and stand in the way of attempts to rob the nation's wealth, all this constitutes a praiseworthy gathering, and cannot be equated with the other one. Therefore, when we say that we are for resistance, adherence to Palestinian rights, the right of return, and have a bias for Palestine, Jerusalem and the nation's sacred places, and that we reject the Zionist occupation and refuse to succumb to the dictates of the enemy, then this is something we are proud of and do not hide. This is the duty of the nation. God Almighty says: "Help one another in righteousness and piety and do not cooperate in sin and aggression." Hence, coming together for such cooperation is desired, and we should not fear of being accused of bias towards one of the axes in such a case. Second angle: we do not consider our commitment to resistance and refusal to submit to the Quartet's and the enemy's conditions and the American-Israeli vision of the settlement and relinquishment of Palestinian rights to be undermining of Palestinian or Arab parties, but, rather, [we consider it to be an undermining] of the Zionist enemy. As for those whose agenda intersects with the enemy's, or who succumb to them and go along with them under pressure, and participate in besieging us or inciting against us, those are the ones who are practically placing themselves against the mission of the resistance. However, we do not antagonise anyone from our people and our nation, and we have not formed a Palestinian, Arab or Muslim axis against another Palestinian Arab one. We continue to reach out to all, and are keen to communicate with everyone and establish relationships with everyone. If there is a break or chill in relationships with someone, it is this someone who chooses this break or chill and not us. Everyone is aware of this fact, because we reach out to all Arabs ? some some of them respond positively, and others do not. Third angle: if it was acceptable to disagree in our politics and analysis of the political situation when the deal was being put to the test and when people were paying heavily for the resistance, is it acceptable to disagree today after the deal has been proven a failure with an obstructive political horizon and very heavy costs and consequences, much heavier than the costs of the resistance? We call on all the nation's states and forces to rally together with us in our natural environment as a nation; when the nation undergoes occupation, our natural environment and our priority should be the resistance. When we undergo aggression it is natural to unite in the face of aggression; and when the nation enters a stage of independence, then our natural environment and priority would be reconstruction, economic advancement and cultural renaissance in all its dimensions. Today, the nation should respond to the current challenges and place itself in its natural environment. We hope that everyone would be in this environment, particularly considering that they have tried and failed and found out that betting on the Americans and others is futile. The Americans have been tried in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan, and were tried before that by the Shah in Iran, and the results were dismal. We say to the Arab and Islamic regimes: "The shortest way to maintain your regimes and even your stay in power is by siding with your nation and the people's choices." The official Arab leaderships allowed themselves the opportunity to be engaged in many experiments and attempts on the path of compromise and negotiations. The most recent of these was the Arab Peace Initiative, through which they sent a clear and generous message that the Arab states were willing to provide benefits in return for steps taken by the other party. Eight years have elapsed since this proposal was mooted, without any respect being given either from the Zionist enemy, from the US administration, or from the international community ? except for a few complimentary phrases. During our meetings with many Arab officials and leaders, we continue to say to them: "After this experience, and after reaching a dead-end, is it not worthwhile to stop and look for alternative options?" We used also to say to them that withdrawing from the settlement plan and the Arab initiative did not mean entering into official wars, which is not possible today with Israel. Another option is to support the resistance, and thus the nation can rally behind a realistic and pragmatic option which has proven able to withstand, and able to score some achievements, an option that is bound significantly to develop in terms of its weight and influence in the Arab-Israeli conflict, especially if it finds support. If official wars with the enemy are impossible today because of the imbalance of power, it is difficult for the nation ? as things currently stand ? to engage on a programme of a regular Arab war against Israel. So let the realistic and practical option be resistance, which we have tried and which has succeeded in driving the occupiers out of southern Lebanon and Gaza, and whose effects are being seen clearly in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hence, we believe that calling on the nation and its forces to line up in their natural environment is not an abstract or emotional theory, but is, rather, based on a practical option that has been successfully tried. The nation is capable of using this option on the official and popular levels, particularly since the negotiation option has failed and in light of the contempt displayed by the enemy leaders towards us, as well as successive US administrations' betrayal of the Arabs and the Muslims, and even of their friends and associates. Hamas and Christians What is the Hamas view of Christians and their role in the Palestinian cause? Islam dealt with the Christians in a special manner compared to other religions, as in the [Qur'anic] verse: "You will surely find that, of all people, the most hostile to those who believe are the Jews and those who are polytheists; and you will certainly find that, of all people, the nearest in friendship to those who believe are those who say: ?We are Christians.'" The historical relations between Christians and Muslims have had a special status in history since the conquest of Palestine, when the second caliph, Umar ibn al-Khattab, received the keys to the city of Jerusalem after the Christians insisted that Jews do not live with them in Jerusalem. A special relationship between Muslims and Christians was formed thereafter. What is more, Palestine enjoys an exceptional status, being the land of prophets and messengers, the birthplace of Jesus (peace be upon him), and the place of Muhammad's (peace be upon him) night journey. Palestine is one of the foremost examples of coexistence and tolerance among all faiths. This is a legacy carried by the Palestinians ? whether Muslims or Christians ? and has resulted in the evolution of the historical relations we see. In the past decades, since the 1930s when the late Haj Amin al-Husseini sponsored Christian and Muslim conferences, Muslims and Christians have had mutual concerns, and have cooperated to face mutual challenges. The Palestinians ? Muslims and Christians ? were in the same boat against the Zionist occupation. This was reflected in the role of our Christian brothers in the contemporary Palestinian Revolution when all factions united as one people. Since the formation of Hamas, the relationship with the Christian brothers has been normal and good, and there were no problems between us and them. This, despite the fact that some Palestinian forces tried, unfortunately, to scare Christians with the idea of the new Hamas, recalling that it is an Islamic movement in order that they might promote the notion of an allegedly inevitable contradiction between Hamas and the Christians. However, these attempts at intimidation failed, and Christians found the movement to be close to them, dealing with everyone with tolerance, openness and respect. During the second Palestinian intifada, the movement took into consideration the specificities of Christian festivals, and was careful that strike days did not coincide with Christian festivals and events, just as it was also keen to protect Christian property. Not only this, but Hamas was also keen on an active Christian role in Palestinian political life. The movement's leaders, at home and abroad, held several meetings with Christian national religious figures. For these reasons, Hamas won broad support among Christians before and after the 2006 legislative elections; there were many Christians who voted for Hamas, and we supported them in the West Bank and Gaza, too. For example, Dr Husam al-Tawil ? a Christian ? won [a seat] in Gaza owing to votes from Hamas and its supporters. The number of Muslims who voted for him was several times the number of Christian votes ? given that the number of Christians in the Gaza Strip is small. I recall here, because of its symbolic significance, an incident that happened in an Arab airport. A certain person approached me, introduced himself as a Palestinian, said that he was from Beit Jala, was a Christian, and that he had elected Hamas and still supported it. He was not obliged to say this, and nobody pushed him to say them; he did that on his own, and expressed his feelings. This is a model of the good relationship between the movement and the Christian brothers from among our people. We are dealing with the Christian brothers as a fundamental component of the people and homeland, and an active part in the struggle against the occupation, without the consideration that this is a Muslim and that a Christian. We are partners in the country, and everyone has rights and duties. When we recall religious figures prominent in the struggle of the people of Palestine, we recall, among Muslims, Sheikh Raed Salah, Sheikh Ikrima Sabri, and [among Christians] Bishop Atallah Hanna, Bishop Capucci, and so on; we all share in defending Jerusalem and the cause. Hamas may have surprised some liberals and secularists in the Palestinian arena who thought, or even promoted the idea, that, by virtue of its Islamic identity, it will isolate itself and that a tenuous relationship may develop between us and Christian Palestinians. They were surprised when their expectations did not materialise. This is because religion is not about isolation and detachment; on the contrary, faith motivates a person to be tolerant, to be respectful of others, and to recognise their rights. Hamas and Women Islamic movements are commonly accused of contempt towards women and marginalisation of their role in political and social life. How do you view these charges in light of your experience in Hamas? Unfortunately, there is a gap between the true concepts of Islam regarding woman, and their more recent practical application. There is an erroneous application and behaviour that results from backwardness and does not come from the texts and spirit of the Shari'ah. Even at the present time, however, and despite the good level of progress in the Arab and Islamic countries, there are still errors in the application [of the Shari'ah], arising from many customs, traditions and concepts which emanate from certain situations and specific environments, and do not arise from the provisions of Islam itself. Women in the texts of the Qur'an and hadith (prophetic traditions) are charged with duties just as men are, and when the Qur'an speaks about Shari'ah and its provisions, it mentions men and women together because everyone is charged with and has individual responsibilities. This is evident in God Almighty's saying: "The Believers, men and women, are protectors one of another: they enjoin what is just, and forbid what is evil," and "Never will I suffer to be lost the work of any of you, be you male or female. You are members, one of another." And, in the Prophet's words: "Women are the twin halves of men." There are also other such Qur'anic verses and hadith. Woman in the Islamic concept of thought, jurisprudence, mandate and role is ? indeed ? one half of society, and she has been given her prestige and respect. However, there is a huge difference between respect and appreciation for woman and her rightful role [on the one hand], and abusing her and presenting her as a cheap commodity as is done in the Western civilisation [on the other]. There is a difference between preserving woman's chastity and modesty and safeguarding her rights while according her a suitable role, and dealing with her as a commodity of lust and pleasure. These ethical regulations are not just Islamic; they are innate and human. We in Hamas are keen, as regards women, to invoke Islamic concepts and their unadulterated application which are not marred by the ages of backwardness or the weight of social norms and traditions that stem from the environment and not the religious text, especially since the environment of Palestine is not a closed environment but a historically civilised one enjoying plurality and openness to all religions, civilisations and cultures. With this pure and original conception, and as a part and an extension of the Palestinian experience and its legacy, Hamas assigned a distinctive role for women in its operations. The role of women was highlighted during the intifada, in the resistance and all forms of struggle efforts, not only as mother, wife and sister to the strugglers, but also as one herself, carrying out commando and martyrdom operations, supporting her brothers and martyrs, and providing logistical assistance. There are also sisters who drove fighters to the operation site, as happened in the Sbarro operation and others. In the Zionist jails, there are tens of captive sisters enduring the suffering in prison and paying the toll of jihad side-by-side with their brothers. The role of women is significant in the Palestinian arena and in the movement, whether at work, jihad and struggle, in the field of social charity and educational work, or political and syndicalist work. The Palestinian woman is educated and cultured, and her activity in schools and universities is no less than that of a man. Proceeding from our Islamic terms of reference, Arab cultural identity and the distinctive Palestinian environment, women in Hamas occupy an advanced position. In political action, and before the Legislative Council was created, women had significant activities in the Palestinian student movement and in various unions; and when Hamas took part in the legislative elections, women enjoyed a strong presence and a large share on our lists, as well as in the government formed by Hamas. It is true that some Islamic movements and groups are criticised for neglecting the role of women, but we find, on the other hand, cases of depravity and misdemeanour infringing on ethical concerns with some secular parties and forces. Hamas was keen to develop a moderate vision which would grant woman her authentic role, without breaking from Islamic principles, values and ethics, and at the same time being free from isolation, seclusion and marginalisation. I believe we have succeeded in that, thanks to God. Women also have an important role on the organisational level in Hamas, which seeks better to develop their role and participation within the organisational structure of the movement. Hamas' Model of Resistance What contribution did Hamas make vis-?-vis jihad and the struggle? What distinguishes its model of resistance? It must first be emphasised that Hamas as a movement of resistance against the Zionist occupation is a natural and authentic part of the experience of the Palestinian struggle, an extension of it, and one of its circles that is continuing from a hundred years ago, starting with the first revolution and the first martyr and all its icons and leaderships and their great struggle ? despite adverse circumstances in their time. These were people such as ?Izzeddine al-Qassam, Haj Amin al-Husseini, Farhan al-Sa'adi, Abdul Qader al-Husseini, among others, up to the contemporary Palestinian revolution with all its factions, forces, leaderships and icons of struggle. The march of the Palestinian struggle continues today, thanks to God, and will continue until the goals of liberation and return and deliverance from Zionist occupation are realised. This means that Hamas, as a resistance movement, is not separate from nor does it exist without roots in a desert, but is rather a part of a whole. It is part of our people's history of struggle and its jihadi march ? full of sacrifices, challenges, creativity, patience, endurance, and determination to continue the march and overcome all obstacles, challenges and adverse and unfavourable circumstances until the ultimate goal is achieved, God willing. This sense of belonging and extension has infused Hamas ? as it has infused other forces of the Palestinian resistance ? with the legacy of that history and its originality, spirit and distinctive identity, and made us grasp that long and rich experience and benefit from its various stages with all its successes and achievements, and some failure as well. For us and our people, these experiences are a rich and valuable reservoir. The choice of the name of Martyr ?Izzeddine al-Qassam for our military wing and its brigades is but an expression of this affiliation and a manifestation of it. Our asserting this fact here is necessary and very important in order for each of us to know our roots and factors of real power on the one hand, and also to know our real size and specific position in this long march. Just as belonging to such history and course gives people or movements the strength and self-confidence that are necessary, especially in difficult moments, it also gives them the necessary humility and respect for the roles of others. We and the others are part of this blessed course; we were not the first and will not necessarily be the last. We and the others build on the experience of our forerunners and benefit from them, and then we create our own experiences with their positives and negatives, and interact with our associates in the march. All this will be a legacy for future generations who will carry the flag and continue the struggle until victory and liberation are achieved, God willing. This is the goal which everyone will have contributed to ? even if they do not witness the final outcome. We have striven to form our model of resistance, which we established as a contribution to this great struggle, and we were keen to offer ? through it ? a notable addition to the march of the Palestinian struggle. We have ingrained in it a host of important and necessary concepts, policies and regulations, and given it much spirit, creativity, perseverance and determination. Among the most prominent of these visions, concepts and policies are: First: Resistance is our means to achieve the strategic objective, namely, the liberation and restoration of our rights and ending the Zionist occupation of our land and our holy sites. That is to say, resistance is a strategy of liberation, and is the main axis in our work as a resistance movement rather than being a mere choice we have made. It is the backbone of our project. Despite the importance of our programme and the other work that is done in the course of implementing the movement's programme ? such as the political, popular, social, charitable, and economic work, the true value and impact of these activities in serving the objectives rest on their position within the context of resistance as a key programme, and within a working system to which the resistance is the backbone. This is because we are a resistance movement facing a colonialist military occupation opposed to our existence, and so it is natural that armed and all-inclusive resistance be the basis and the decisive factor in this confrontation. Second: Resistance for us is a means, and not an end, in the service of the aim and the objectives; it is not resistance for the sake of resistance. The elaboration of the resistance concept to make it an end in itself entails many errors in understanding, vision, and in the practical attitude and behaviour, as well as a flaw in decision-making and interest assessment. Yes, the resistance is very important, and a primary axis to our project, but it is not the objective. It is the means and the way for achieving this goal, and a strategic tool for liberation. Third: "Hamas" is not a military group, but an all-embracing national liberation movement, with resistance as its main axis, its strategic means to liberation and the realisation of the Palestinian national project. At the same time, the movement works in all fields and areas, and has its own aims and political vision. It is a grassroots movement conscious of the concerns of its people at home and abroad, defending their interests, and seeking to serve them as much as possible in all aspects of daily life. Fourth: We have limited our resistance to be in opposition to the Israeli occupation alone. Our resistance is against the enemy occupying our land and encroaching on our people and holy sites, and not against anyone else. We did not use resistance even against those who supported our enemies and provided them with all the means of force and the deadly weapons which kill our people. We also adopted the policy of confining the resistance to Palestine and not outside it ? not out of powerlessness, but on account of an accurate estimation of interest, and a balancing of various considerations. Fifth: We clearly adopt the policy of using weapons and force only in the face of the occupier and the external enemy attacking us; this is legitimate resistance. This means not using weapons and force either in domestic affairs, or in addressing political and intellectual disputes. Addressing disputes within national ranks must be through dialogue, consensus and arbitration by people, through democracy and the ballot box. The tragic events in the Gaza Strip a few years ago are not a departure from this policy, as this is an entirely different case. There was a Palestinian party which rejected the election result and sought to overturn it, that is, to overturn Palestinian legitimacy, and, unfortunately, they collaborated with the Zionist enemy and the Americans and used weapons against us. It is our natural right to defend ourselves when forced to do so, particularly considering that we did this from the position of a legitimate government formed after fair democratic elections which were approved by the elected Legislative Council. On the other hand, when we were out of power from 1994 until 2006, and although the Authority had arrested thousands of our members and severely tortured them, and pursued the resistance, its weapons and men, and coordinated (and continues to coordinate) security with the Zionist enemy, we did not respond at that time by using weapons or force against it and restricted our resistance to the Zionist enemy alone. We adopted a hands-off policy and restricted our opposition to the Authority, and the management of our dispute with it, to peaceful political and popular means. Six: We have adopted a policy of not engaging in turf battles in the region, contrary to what others had done in the earlier stages. We never used force and weapons against any Arab state or party even if they harmed and besieged us, or arrested and tortured our brethren, or stabbed the resistance in the back, or incited against us. The Arabs are our brothers and family and they constitute our strategic depth; so we cannot wrong them even if they did so to us. We have committed ourselves to this policy over the past years, and will remain committed to it, God willing, because our battle is exclusively against the Zionist enemy. Seven: In building the resistance, we took pains to focus on building the resistance activist religiously, educationally, psychologically, and intellectually, ensuring a high degree of organisational and behavioural discipline, commitment to religious and ethical rules of resistance, and developing the capacity for endurance and steadfastness in extreme circumstances, as well as building awareness and clarity of vision in the fighters, sincerity of purpose and intention, and the blending of the religious and national dimensions to develop a strong incentive in the course of jihad and the resistance. The fighter struggles against the occupying enemy in defence of his homeland and holy sites, his people and nation, and his family and honour. As for the movement's contribution to jihad and the struggle, it must be noted as a key and substantial point that Hamas succeeded, thanks to God, in building and strengthening its resistance even though it emerged at a difficult time, at a point when many factors and objective conditions for the success of revolutions and liberation movements were vanishing. The most notable of these is the end of the Cold War, the absence of an international ally, and the emergence of an international system based on the unipolarity of the United States of America, the foremost ally of the Zionist entity, followed by the entry of the world into the "war on terror", and the pinning of the charge on Islam and resistance movements. Added to that, although this factor often has various outcomes and implications, is the fact that the resistance in Palestine has been undergoing a suffocating siege for some time, and is deprived of a friendly neighbourhood that can provide strategic and logistical depth, and of a secure rear base allowing for freedom of movement and manoeuvre. All this led to extreme difficulty in the continuance of the armed struggle as it was before, especially working from the outside to the inside, and the difficulty of providing logistical support to the resistance at home and abroad. In light of this great challenge, and in order to continue the project of resistance and to overcome obstacles and blockades, the movement focused on a strategy of broadening the participation of the Palestinian people at home, and their involvement in the resistance and confrontation [with the enemy]; starting from stone-throwing, introducing creativity to the first and second intifada in which everyone took part (thus reflecting a new phase of the Palestinian struggle), and introducing new and innovative forms of resistance and open confrontation with the occupation. Another strategy of self-building at home was adopted as well in terms of recruitment, training, arming and manoeuvre, while making every effort to collect financial and technical support and arms from abroad as much as possible. When the blockade intensified further, the idea of manufacturing weapons, inside, from available raw materials emerged. So we accepted the task with these enormous challenges, siege and persecution, and faced it bravely and resolutely through innovation, creativity, diversification, self-reliance and counting on God in all circumstances, and continuously seeking friends and allies and available support. We thought to ourselves that, even if we remained by ourselves in the field, and lost all support from others, we would persist in our resistance and we would not give it up or end it, and will keep urging our nation to support us and take part in this honourable duty, quoting Allah Almighty's statement to the Prophet (peace be upon him): "You shall fight in God's cause; you are responsible only for your own self; and inspire the believers to do the same. It may be that God will neutralise the power of those who disbelieve. God is much more powerful, and stronger in the ability to deter" (Surah 4, Verse 84). We used to say so despite our conviction and confidence in our nation's faithfulness and its commitment not to abandon its responsibilities towards the central issue of Palestine and confronting the Zionist enterprise. Our nation clearly realises the essence of the Zionist enterprise and the danger it poses to the whole region and the world. Another addition by Hamas, in terms of jihad and the struggle, is innovation in resistance and its methods, tactics and tools, such as expanding martyrdom operations and developing them to become a lethal weapon against the enemy, and striking deep at its security. Another example is the manufacture of weapons locally and transforming this into an actual and real project that could be relied on, even if temporarily, given the difficulty of obtaining weapons from outside. The most prominent example in this regard is the manufacture of weapons which were initially dealt with lightly on account of their simplicity and their limited range and effectiveness, but which have evolved to advanced stages and have become a real nuisance to the enemy, with growing impact on its security. Another important addition is the development of the resistance's capacities in the face of Israeli incursions, and the success in defending Palestinian areas and towns following the distinctive model of Gaza and the heroic attempt in the Jenin camp, where all conventional methods were used and were complemented by the method of tunnels and their usage on a large scale to defend and challenge. This went even so far as to withstand a real war wherein the enemy was routed and its objectives thwarted ? like in the Zionist enemy's war on the Gaza Strip in 2008-2009, which actually was the largest war waged by Israel on Palestinian land. A further addition is the improvement of resistance to being able to achieve and liberate part of the land. The Palestinian resistance, with its military wings and qualitative martyrdom operations, and with the significant impact of our people's second uprising, was able to force the Zionist enemy to leave the Gaza Strip and dismantle its settlements for the first time in the history of the Zionist entity. This clearly means that the Palestinian revolution, through the development of capacity, momentum and tools, as well as innovation and diversification of methods and tactics, and through determination and patience, has become a real and reliable option whose ability to withstand, defend and achieve, even if step-by-step, can be trusted by the people despite the enormous difference in and the continuing imbalance of power compared to the enemy. The resistance was also concerned with an important aspect in its experience as a resistance movement, namely the alternation between escalation and abatement in line with the conditions and circumstances of our people, serving the public interest, and sound political judgement. The calm could be self-chosen or undeclared as was necessary, and as part of the resistance's decision-making, or it could be announced publicly by agreement of the resistance forces, in return for specific demands such as discontinuation of Zionist aggression, lifting the siege, and so on. We, along with other resistance factions, exercised this with all consciousness and courage and took responsibility for our people and their interests. But, in all cases, we exercised this on the basis of clinging to resistance and developing it further as our strategic option for liberation. In the battlefield and on the path of resistance and liberation, the movement offered ? as did others from our people ? a prominent galaxy of martyrs from its finest leaders, icons and cadres, led by Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, founder of the movement; Abdul Aziz al-Rantisi; Jamal Mansour; Jamal Salim; Ibrahim al-Makadmeh; Isma'il Abu Shanab; Salah Darwazeh; Yousef Sarakji; Saed Siam; Nizar Rayyan; and thousands of other noble martyrs. The movement also offered illustrious figures in the history of Palestinian military activity, such as Imad Akel; Yahya Ayyash; Salah Shehadeh; Mahmoud Abu Hannoud; and dozens of other martyrs who cannot all be named here, though their names will remain in the Palestinian memory and history of struggle. Another aspect, and a very important addition, is the introduction of the Islamic religious dimension to the battle alongside the national one, with all the significance of Islam in the life of the people and the nation, and the spirit, strength and vigour it endows the strugglers with, as well as enhancing motivation for resistance, and the ability further to endure, persevere and withstand, not to mention Islam's ability to mobilise the masses and stir their feelings in the face of the occupiers. Furthermore, this essential dimension has increased the rallying of the Arab and Islamic nation's masses and their support for the Palestinian people and their resistance, especially during major events such as the war and blockade on Gaza, and all matters relating to Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa Mosque. Islamic sentiments are among the most important links between the masses of the nation and their elites and Palestine. Thus, the forceful entry of Hamas ? with its clear Islamic identity ? onto the battlefield was a decisive factor in raising the broad Arab and Islamic momentum, and invoking it for the cause and the Palestinian resistance. How do you see the issue of laxity in shedding blood? There are strict established conditions regarding blood and the lives of the people, stressed by the Qur'an and the Sunnah. The Prophet (peace be upon him) never stressed anything like he stressed this issue. He repeatedly emphasised it, particularly in his Farewell Sermon, and so it became central in the charter of the nation. There are also codes of ethics and national customs that people subscribe to so as to establish internal peace in their societies, and everyone should abide by these rules and not violate them. We in the movement are keen to do this carefully through instilling these constraints and legal, ethical and national rules, sensitising the members of the movement, educating them, compelling them to abide by these rules in their behaviour, and practising accountability for any infringements or violations. Those who need emphasis on these issues are no doubt those in the military domain and bearers of weapons, so that the weapons are used only in their natural domain against the occupying enemy. For those who carry weapons might be tempted by their feeling of self-power glibly to use their weapons needlessly. The more intense the environment of domestic tension in a society becomes, the more likely will be indulgence and excess in the use of arms. It should be noted here that the severity of the security experience with the Palestinian Authority in the 1990s, the poor performance of its security apparatus, corruption, harassment of people ? especially the resistance movements, primarily Hamas, and the torture and insulting of its leaders, all created feelings of indignation and severe pain, and wounded souls that will never heal as a result of that harsh experience. This rendered the domestic environment in the Palestinian community unsound and unhealthy, tense and irascible, and increased narrow partisanship and partiality to the self and the faction at the expense of the overall national interest. These are defects we must all work to address; we must work together and take responsibility to get rid of them, because that would be in the interest of the country, the cause and all of us, and because the prolonging of such defects and phenomena is detrimental to all, and harmful to the cause and the national interest. The possession of arms, the sense of power, and large forces often cast on their owners vanity and self-admiration, lure them into laxity in their use of weapons, and may cause them to make mistakes and abuse the rights of others. By nature, man exceeds proper bounds when he becomes rich or strong, as God Almighty says: "But man transgresses all bounds, in that he looks upon himself as self-sufficient" (Surah 96, Verses 6-7). Preventing such transgression requires discipline and control through religious, moral and patriotic commitment, and through the enactment of constraints, rules and penalties, and by being held answerable for abuses and irregularities. We in the movement exercise this approach with its two parts: the religious, moral and patriotic deterrent; and checks and balances, accountability and penalty in the case of violation. These are issues related to religion, national interest and people's rights. We are also keen on the integrity of intentions and purity of motives of the fighters, so that jihad, effort and behaviour are always purely for the sake of God, and for the homeland and its interest, away from the passion for revenge or personal motives. Despite all this, mistakes still occur; this is part of human nature. Abuses and mistakes occur in the experiences of all nations and peoples, as with the armies of the world and the ugliness we see practised against the vulnerable and occupied peoples in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, as an Arab and Muslim nation, and by virtue of our religion's principles, our morals and cultural heritage, we need always to commit to the highest standards of ethical and behavioural discipline, and firmness towards errors and abuses, for our morals are not to be practised only among ourselves, but are, rather, universal and human and should be practised with everyone, regardless their religion or race. Even at the time of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), there were excesses and errors, but dealing with them was firm and fast. The Holy Qur'an addressed one of these cases in the verse: "O you who believe! When you go abroad in the cause of Allah, investigate carefully, and say not to anyone who offers you a salutation: ?You are not a believer!' Coveting the perishable goods of this life: with Allah are profits and spoils abundant. You too were once in the same condition, till God conferred on you His favours. Therefore carefully investigate. For God is well aware of all that you do" (Surah 4, Verse 94). The Prophet (peace be upon him) was firm in addressing these violations, few as they were, and the prophetic traditions in this regard are well-known, as partiality towards principles, values and morals is the basis of religion and the foundation of the nation. From here, in compliance with Islamic rules and ethics, following the example of the Holy Qur'an and the Sunnah ? because we consider commitment to them a religious obligation and a source of goodness and bliss, and in fulfilment of our people's and nation's national interest, our policy in the movement is based on the non-endorsement of errors and violations, and not legitimising them no matter where they come from. We, rather, consider them to be at variance with the approach of the movement, its thinking and commitment, and we penalise the offenders and abusers firmly. Future of the Region What is your vision of the region's future in the next five years? The region today is in the throes of labour, and the next five years are likely to witness a continuation and expansion of this labour. We hope it will ultimately result in positive changes and a promising fruit, God willing, even if difficult. We have confidence and hope that the future in the coming years will be to the benefit of the nation and the Palestinian resistance and cause. No doubt the nation is today going through a stage of advancement, but it is ? unavoidably ? a difficult one that could be accompanied by a lot of pain, and so it requires more patience and determination, and the doubling of efforts on the one hand, and the escalation of resistance and confrontation with the occupying enemy on the other. Some believe this reading of yours to be optimistic and unfounded. On what basis do you construct your expectations? Our reading is not fanciful, and is certainly not defeatist. Our reading is realistic and based on numerous facts, proofs and indicators. One of these is that the resistance endeavour in the region has evolved significantly, and has proven its presence and effectiveness. Not only this, but the resistance endeavour has endured and scored important successes, even though it is working under unfavourable conditions and is facing major challenges, the most important of which is the regional and international imbalance of power, and the state of weakness and division in the Arab and Islamic countries. Those who view the reality of the resistance in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan will realise that resistance has become the only real option on which the peoples of the region can depend to confront the forces of hegemony and for resisting occupation, defending the land and interests and safeguarding their independence, and to repel aggression from any nation in the world, even if it is as powerful and mighty as the United States of America. Resistance in the region has not only held out and succeeded in accomplishing strides in liberation ? as in Gaza and south Lebanon ? and held out in the face of large wars, but it also entangled the invading forces who seek directly to control the region in such huge trouble and dilemmas that they are now forced to reconsider their calculations. The people and the resistance of the region have ? thank God ? forced these major powers and nations to accord some consideration to this nation, after being tempted by the Arab governments' weak policies into more greed and underestimation and disregard for us when formulating their foreign policy and important decisions for the region. The Zionist war on Gaza and the Freedom Flotilla incident have exposed something important in the course of the conflict, which is that the nation still sees Palestine as its first cause, and that the nation's people, however frustrated, are still able to recover and mobilise significantly in record time, facing real issues and serious confrontations with the enemy. This inherent vitality in the nation, reflected in some of the junctures and hot spots, was one of the factors and causes ? according to our information ? which prompted Western countries to put pressure on Israel to accelerate the cessation of the recent war in Gaza, fearing the repercussions of sweeping Arab and Islamic anger and its effects vis-?-vis the current political reality in the region and Western interests therein. There have also been important positive transformations in recent years in the positions of a number of Arab and Islamic countries which, together with the resistance forces, created a situation of increasing power and independence, bias for the resistance endeavour and the interests of the nation, and rejection of external conditions and pressures. There are also rejectionist countries allied to the resistance, and they have made remarkable progress in terms of their role in the region, along with other Arab states which developed their position and honestly and courageously expressed their support for the Palestinian resistance, the choice of the Palestinian people and the democratic choice demonstrated by the 2006 elections. We recently saw the emergence of the Turkish regional role, on a positive course towards the independence of political decision-making and economic advancement, promotion of the democratic experience, openness to the Arab and Islamic nation, remarkable and effective engagement on the question of Palestine and other regional issues, and the adoption of strong and courageous positions, all of which indicate a transformation in the region and across the nation, strengthening the trend towards advancement and change for the better. There is no doubt that there is a clear recognition by all, even those who stubbornly deny it, that the strategy of settlement and negotiations has failed miserably and has reached an impasse, after nearly 20 years of its adoption as the sole option for the overall Arab official policy based on so-called "moderation". [There is also a recognition] that all successive US administrations, on which the Arab states counted for help in making this strategy successful, did nothing for them but embarrassed and let them down, giving them mere talk and promises, and changing time-lines, while still giving the Zionist entity political and practical support. Although the advocates of this strategy are unwilling formally to admit failure, lest a vacuum should form resulting in the call for an alternative, the work in this region must definitely drive everyone to seek an alternative more serious and self-respecting strategy, which will better be able to face the reality posed by Israel everyday on the ground in defiance of everyone ? moderates and non-moderates. The policy of waiting, marking time, sticking to the current policy, testing failed options and reproducing them repeatedly is no longer feasible nor possible. In addition, the general Arab official policy seems, unfortunately, unable to keep pace with the changes in the region, the rise of new players and the growing roles of other players, and the resulting challenges facing the Arabs and their security, interests and regional roles ? especially those of the major countries. Although America continues to weigh influentially on several countries in the region, there is hidden resentment starting to grow towards it in these countries. This includes even those who are friends with the United States, simply because it lets them down and does not help with issues concerning the Arab nation ? particularly with respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict ? and indulges the Zionist entity and other regional countries at their expense, something which increases their embarrassment in front of their people, and weakens their ability to continue marketing and defending the political moderation strategy based on settlement and negotiations. One of the proofs that strengthen our confidence that the future of the region is in our favour is the weakening position of the Zionist entity. It is true that it is still ahead militarily, and that the balance of power still works for it, but it is currently encountering many failures. Yes, it is capable of waging war, but it has long been unable to achieve victory. All the facts mentioned above, and what they sometimes reflect of bitterness and sometimes of promising signs, with a growing awareness among the peoples of the region ? especially the Arab ones, with the open media space and the inability to hide the facts, with a growing return of the nation's peoples to their authentic Arab-Islamic identity and cultural roots, and their increasing concern about the current situation of the Arab nation and its destiny and future, national security and regional and international roles and its major issues, at the forefront of which is the Arab-Zionist conflict All this, in my opinion, stimulates the nation into real and significant change that has become inevitable. It is this which makes me (and those who think similarly to me) confident that the future in the coming years will be, God willing, for the benefit of our nation, notwithstanding the current bitterness, pain and concerns. This view is reinforced by the fact that this region, as evidenced by the facts of history, had always eventually succeeded in regaining the initiative and defeating the forces of aggression. Future of the Zionist Enterprise Through your reading of the course of the Zionist enterprise and its current reality, how do you see the future of this enterprise? Is it moving towards realising "Greater Israel", or is it in decline and regression? Factual data reinforce the conviction that the Zionist enterprise has no future in the region. There is a real decline in this enterprise, for which expansion was an important characteristic, and it is no longer able to continue in this way. The construction of the wall (while recognising its negative repercussions on the Palestinian people), and the withdrawal from southern Lebanon and the Gaza Strip are but practical examples of this decline and regression. Israel, which used to wage war on its neighbours and win easily, was able to take the fight to its enemy, and used to strike everywhere, now has its heartland as a field of battle for the Palestinian resistance. This is a repetitive phenomenon. The so-called "Israeli home front" is now threatened in every war or confrontation and is paying the price for its leaders' adventures. Moreover, the ruling class in Israel today ? and on the level of many military, political and security leaders ? no longer has the capacity of the first generation who built this entity, nor the will to fight that they had had, not to mention rampant corruption in the ruling class, a growing number of suicides, the evasion of military service, and the declining performance of its security institutions. Israel has not won a real war since 1967, except for the invasion of Beirut in 1982. This is an important indicator of the decline of the Zionist enterprise's ability, and the fact that it has no future. In my estimation, the "Greater Israel" project has come to an end, simply because the Zionist enemy is no longer able to accomplish it, and because Israel continues on the same path as did apartheid South Africa. This is a growing conviction for many neutral politicians and observers. After more than 60 years since the establishment of this entity, and when the question in the Israeli street is not only about the security of Israel, but also about its future and destiny, this is an important and serious development. When the Israeli community questions the basis of its existence and future, and the feasibility of its enterprise, then the countdown must have begun, God willing. Saying this is not enough, however; what is required is building on it. We are not calling for an underestimation of the Zionist entity's strength and capabilities (for it is the sensible who do not underestimate their enemy) which still has many elements of power. Nevertheless, this realistic reading and vision, based on many facts and indicators, should prompt us not to succumb to Israeli threats or conditions for political settlement, and not to deal with the Zionist enterprise as an inevitable destiny. The real option and alternative to the policy of submission and the state of helplessness, waiting and getting bogged down in negotiations, is resistance. The Palestinian people are able, God willing, to continue the resistance, but they need the backing and participation of the nation. There is debate among many international parties as to whether Israel still constitutes a strategic asset for Western interests in the region or not. Do you think there is a chance that some international parties might reconsider the usefulness of further unlimited support to the Zionist entity? One of Israel's strong points was its ability to promote itself in the West as part of Western civilisation and as an extension of it, carrying its values, way of life and political system of democratic governance. It also used to present itself as a victim of Nazism in order to draw Western sympathy. Today, Israel is no longer so, especially after the "Goldstone Report", its crimes in the war on Gaza and in Lebanon before that, and its crime against the Freedom Flotilla, as its aggressions have affected hundreds of nationals from dozens of countries, including Western ones. Today, Israel is living in a state of exposure, and a situation where the moral rationale it used to claim and promote earlier is being shaken. Israel is falling morally, and its true ugly face is being exposed. This is a very important development. The Western embrace of Israel has suffered a big shock, especially among the peoples of the West and the elites, due to its heinous crimes and due to the Palestinian steadfastness which exposed it for what it is, and highlighted the just Palestinian cause and its human face. Negotiations will result in Israel polishing its image for public relations purposes. When Israel loses its international incubator, it inflicts upon itself a heavy loss, because it is not an authentic part of the region, but rather survives on the support of the international community, especially the West. The Western mind, on the other hand, glorifies force, adores it and bases its policies upon it. Today, the Zionist entity no longer appears to the West as capable of imposing what it wants in the region, and this means that Western confidence in the ability of this entity forcibly to impose its desires in the region is eroding. This has undoubtedly changed the image of Israel and its functional role in the West from being a profitable investment to becoming an onerous burden; this will gradually impact on Western interaction with the Zionist enterprise in the future. All these factors demonstrate the premature ageing of this enterprise. Usually, when senescence appears early in any physical structure, it indicates a flaw in formation or immunity, as well as a surrounding rejecting environment which brought about this ageing. Without the slightest doubt, Palestinian steadfastness and resistance, and the steadfastness and support of the nation, as well as the continuing confrontations with the enterprise and nonconformity with its will, is what exposed this enterprise and its flaws. Hence, the enterprise aged early and was no longer able to carry out the same adventures and score the same successes as in the past. In short, the Zionist enterprise, like all other enterprises of occupation, settler-colonialism and aggression throughout history, has no legitimacy because it is alien to our region and lacks the elements of survival. It will, thus, end up like all other similar enterprises. We are a great nation, proud of ourselves, our religion, our land, our history, our culture and identity, with Palestine and Jerusalem as our beating heart and an indicator of our life and survival. Therefore, we will not tolerate the Zionist entity for long and we will defeat it just as we defeated the Crusades and the Mongol advance in the past. "For it is by turns that We apportion unto people such days (of fortune and misfortune)" (Surah 3, Verse 140). Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 863-9977 www.Freedomarchives.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From news at freedomarchives.org Thu Sep 9 13:46:30 2010 From: news at freedomarchives.org (Anti-Imperialist News) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 10:46:30 -0700 Subject: [News] Hamas: PA forces are Torturing The Movement Members In West Bank Jails Message-ID: Hamas - PA forces are Torturing The Movement Members In West Bank Jails 09.09.10 - 15:37 http://english.pnn.ps/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8754&Itemid=61 Bethlehem ? PNN ? Hamas sources announced on Thursday that many of the movement?s activists and leaders who were detained by the Palestinian Authority forces in the West Bank are being subjected to torture. The Hamas movement says since the two separate attacks last week on Israeli settlers , the Palestinian police and security forces have arrested 750 Hamas members and leaders from West Bank communities. Last Tuesday and Wednesday Al Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of Hamas, attacked Israeli settlers and killed four them and injured two. Since May Israeli Settlers and army attacked left 14 Palestinians killed. On Thursday Hamas said that the families of those detained by the PA forces are not allowed to see them and says those how managed to see their relatives say they were tortured. Yesterday Hamas accused the PA of ?collaborating with the Occupation? when security sources said that they have made progress in detaining the attackers of last week. Hamas had been and logger heads with Fatah, headed by Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, since Hamas took total control of the Gaza Strip in the summer of 2006. The Islamist Hamas took Gaza and ended a bloody infighting with Fatah that lasted for months after Hamas won the elections in the same year. Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 863-9977 www.Freedomarchives.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From news at freedomarchives.org Thu Sep 9 16:46:44 2010 From: news at freedomarchives.org (Anti-Imperialist News) Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 13:46:44 -0700 Subject: [News] US soldiers 'killed Afghan civilians for sport and collected fingers as trophies' Message-ID: US soldiers 'killed Afghan civilians for sport and collected fingers as trophies' http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/09/us-soldiers-afghan-civilians-fingers Soldiers face charges over secret 'kill team' which allegedly murdered at random and collected fingers as trophies of war Andrew Holmes, Michael Wagnon, Jeremy Morlock and Adam Winfield are four of the five Stryker soldiers who face murder charges. Photograph: Public Domain Twelve American soldiers face charges over a secret "kill team" that allegedly blew up and shot Afghan civilians at random and collected their fingers as trophies. Five of the soldiers are charged with murdering three Afghan men who were allegedly killed for sport in separate attacks this year. Seven others are accused of covering up the killings and assaulting a recruit who exposed the murders when he reported other abuses, including members of the unit smoking hashish stolen from civilians. In one of the most serious accusations of war crimes to emerge from the Afghan conflict, the killings are alleged to have been carried out by members of a Stryker infantry brigade based in Kandahar province in southern Afghanistan. According to investigators and legal documents, discussion of killing Afghan civilians began after the arrival of Staff Sergeant Calvin Gibbs at forward operating base Ramrod last November. Other soldiers told the army's criminal investigation command that Gibbs boasted of the things he got away with while serving in Iraq and said how easy it would be to "toss a grenade at someone and kill them". One soldier said he believed Gibbs was "feeling out the platoon". Investigators said Gibbs, 25, hatched a plan with another soldier, Jeremy Morlock, 22, and other members of the unit to form a "kill team". While on patrol over the following months they allegedly killed at least three Afghan civilians. According to the charge sheet, the first target was Gul Mudin, who was killed "by means of throwing a fragmentary grenade at him and shooting him with a rifle", when the patrol entered the village of La Mohammed Kalay in January. Morlock and another soldier, Andrew Holmes, were on guard at the edge of a poppy field when Mudin emerged and stopped on the other side of a wall from the soldiers. Gibbs allegedly handed Morlock a grenade who armed it and dropped it over the wall next to the Afghan and dived for cover. Holmes, 19, then allegedly fired over the wall. Later in the day, Morlock is alleged to have told Holmes that the killing was for fun and threatened him if he told anyone. The second victim, Marach Agha, was shot and killed the following month. Gibbs is alleged to have shot him and placed a Kalashnikov next to the body to justify the killing. In May Mullah Adadhdad was killed after being shot and attacked with a grenade. The Army Times reported that a least one of the soldiers collected the fingers of the victims as souvenirs and that some of them posed for photographs with the bodies. Five soldiers ? Gibbs, Morlock, Holmes, Michael Wagnon and Adam Winfield ? are accused of murder and aggravated assault among other charges. All of the soldiers have denied the charges. They face the death penalty or life in prison if convicted. The killings came to light in May after the army began investigating a brutal assault on a soldier who told superiors that members of his unit were smoking hashish. The Army Times reported that members of the unit regularly smoked the drug on duty and sometimes stole it from civilians. The soldier, who was straight out of basic training and has not been named, said he witnessed the smoking of hashish and drinking of smuggled alcohol but initially did not report it out of loyalty to his comrades. But when he returned from an assignment at an army headquarters and discovered soldiers using the shipping container in which he was billeted to smoke hashish he reported it. Two days later members of his platoon, including Gibbs and Morlock, accused him of "snitching", gave him a beating and told him to keep his mouth shut. The soldier reported the beating and threats to his officers and then told investigators what he knew of the "kill team". Following the arrest of the original five accused in June, seven other soldiers were charged last month with attempting to cover up the killings and violent assault on the soldier who reported the smoking of hashish. The charges will be considered by a military grand jury later this month which will decide if there is enough evidence for a court martial. Army investigators say Morlock has admitted his involvement in the killings and given details about the role of others including Gibbs. But his lawyer, Michael Waddington, is seeking to have that confession suppressed because he says his client was interviewed while under the influence of prescription drugs taken for battlefield injuries and that he was also suffering from traumatic brain injury. "Our position is that his statements were incoherent, and taken while he was under a cocktail of drugs that shouldn't have been mixed," Waddington told the Seattle Times. Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 863-9977 www.Freedomarchives.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From news at freedomarchives.org Mon Sep 13 11:41:18 2010 From: news at freedomarchives.org (Anti-Imperialist News) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 08:41:18 -0700 Subject: [News] India is a corporate, Hindu state: Arundhati Roy Message-ID: India is a corporate, Hindu state: Arundhati Karan Thapar , CNN-IBN Posted on Sep 12, 2010 at 16:03 | Updated Sep 12, 2010 at 17:35 http://ibnlive.in.com/news/india-is-a-corporate-hindu-state-arundhati/130817-3.html?from=tn Hello and welcome to Devil's Advocate. At the end of a week when the Maoists have been on the front pages practically every day, we present a completely different perspective to that of the government's. My guest today is an author, essayist and Booker Prize winner, Arundhati Roy. Karan Thapar: I want to talk to you about how you view the Maoists and how you think the government should respond, but first, how do you view the recent hostage taking in Bihar where four policemen were kidnapped and kept kidnapped for eight days, and one of them - Lukas Tete - murdered? Arundhati Roy: I don't think there is anything revolutionary about killing a person that is in custody. I have made a statement where I said it was as bad as the police killing Azad, as they did, in a fake encounter in Andhra. But, I actually shy away from this atrocity-based analysis that's coming out of our TV screens these days because a part of it is meant for you to lose the big picture about what is this war about, who wants the war? Who needs the war? Karan Thapar: I want very much to talk about the big picture. But, before I come to that, let me point out something else. In the last one year, the Maoists have beheaded Francis Induwar and Sanjoy Ghosh; they have killed Lokus Tete. They have kidnapped other policemen. There have been devastating attacks in Dantewada, there has been the sabotage of the Gyaneshwari Express. In your eyes, does it amount to legitimate strategy or tactics, or does it detract from the Maoist cause? Arundhati Roy: You can't bundle them all together. For example the train accident. I don't think anybody knows who did it yet. Karan Thapar: Everyone's convinced that the Maoists... Arundhati Roy: Everyone can be convinced. But it is not enough to be convinced. You got to have facts and the facts are unravelling every day. Karan Thapar: What about the Dantewada, the beheadings, the kidnappings? Arundhati Roy: This thing is that now what's happening is that there is a situation of conflict, of war. So, you have set out a litany of the terrible acts of violence that have taken place inflicted by one side and left out the picture of what's going on the other side, which is that you have two hundred thousand paramilitary forces closing in on these poorest villages, evicting people, burning people. Of course, all violence is terrible but if you want to get into what actually is going on, we will have to discuss it in slightly more detail. Karan Thapar: So what you are suggesting is that we have a spiral of violence where what one side does to the other justifies the response and, in a sense, you don't want to blame one or the other. You see them both as equally guilty? Arundhati Roy: No I don't. I don't see both as equally guilty and I don't want to justify anything. I see a government breaking every sort of law in the Constitution that it has about tribal people and assault on the homelands of millions of people and some, there is a resistance force that is resisting that. Now, that situation is becoming violent, becoming ugly. And if you start trying to extract morality out of it, you are going to be in a mess. Karan Thapar: But one thing that is crystal clear from what you said is you see the government as the first person, the first party, at fault. The bigger fault, the first fault, is the government's, you see the Maoists as just responding. Arundhati Roy: I see the government absolutely, as the major aggressor. As far as the Maoists are concerned, of course, their ideology is an ideology of overthrowing the Indian state with violence. However, I don't believe that if the Indian state was a just state, if ordinary people had some minor hope for justice, the Maoists would just be a marginal group of militants with no popular appeal. Karan Thapar: So the Maoists get support and strength from the fact that you don't believe that the Indian state is just. Arundhati Roy: Let me tell you, forget the Maoists. Every resistance movement, armed or unarmed, and the Maoists today are fighting to implement the Constitution, and the government is vandalising it. Karan Thapar: So the real constitutionalists are the Maoists and the real breakers of the Constitution is the government? Arundhati Roy: Not only the Maoists, all resistance groups. Karan Thapar: Let's focus for the moment on the Maoists because they are the ones that have been in the news all this week. The prime minister sees the Maoists as the single biggest security threat to the country. I take it that your perception of them is completely different. How do you perceive the Maoists? Arundhati Roy: I perceive them as a group of people who have at a most militant end in the bandwidth of resistance movements that exist in the cities, in the planes and in the forests. Karan Thapar: But what are they seeking to do? What is their justification? Arundhati Roy: Well, their ultimate goal, as they say quite clearly, is to overthrow the Indian state and institute the dictatorship of the proletariat. That is their ultimate goal but... Karan Thapar: Do you, Arundhati Roy, support that goal? Arundhati Roy: I don't support that goal in the sense that I don't believe the solution to the problem the world is in right now will come from an imagination either communist or capitalist because... Karan Thapar: That I understand but do you support any attempt to overthrow the Indian state? Arundhati Roy: Well, I can't say I do because they will lead me from here, in chains. Karan Thapar: That technicality apart, it sounds as if you do. Arundhati Roy: However, I believe that the Indian state has abdicated its responsibility to the people. I believe that. I believe that when a state is no longer bound, neither legally nor morally by the Indian Constitution, either we should rephrase the preamble of the Indian Constitution which says... Karan Thapar: Or? Arundhati Roy: Which says we are a sovereign, democratic, secular republic. We should rephrase it and say we are a corporate, Hindu, satellite state. Karan Thapar: Or? Arundhati Roy: Or we have to have a government which respects the Constitution or we change the Constitution. Karan Thapar: Let me be blunt. It sounds very much to the audience as if you are trying to find a clever, subtle way of saying that you do support the Maoists commitment to overthrow the state but you are scared to say it upfront because you are scared that you would be whisked away to jail. Arundhati Roy: If I say that I support the Maoists' desire to overthrow the Indian State, I would be saying that I am a Maoist. But I am not a Maoist. Karan Thapar: But you sympathise with them. Arundhati Roy: I do sympathise with all the movements. I am on this side of the line with a group of people who are saying that here is a State that is willing to bring out the Army against the poorest people not just in the country but in the world. I cannot support that. Karan Thapar: Let me put this to you. You sympathise with the Maoist cause, but what about the tactics that the Maoists use? The problem is that the Maoists want to trade a new democratic order not by persuading people, not by winning legitimate elections but by armed liberation struggle. To many, that is tantamount to civil war. Do you go that far with them? Arundhati Roy: There is already a civil war. I don't believe that a resistance movement that believes only in violence will lead to a new democracy. I don't believe that. Neither do I believe that if you doctrinally say you must only be non-violent, I believe that is a twisted way of supporting the status quo. I believe that has to be a bandwidth of resistance and I certainly believe that when your village is surrounded by 800 CRPF men who are raping and burning and looting, you can't say I am going on a hunger strike. Then, I support people's right to resist that. Karan Thapar: But put this to me. If you support, no matter what qualifications you add, the right of the Maoists to resist with violence: whether you call it armed liberation struggle or whatever. Arundhati Roy: You keep on going to these Maoists. Karan Thapar: If you support that, no matter with what qualification, how then can you deny the State the right to resort to arms to defend itself? Arundhati Roy: The State doesn't have to defend itself. The State is supposed to represent the people and defend the people. Karan Thapar: But if the State is under attack, it is the people that are under attack and... Arundhati Roy: It is not under attack. The State is perpetrating the attack. That is what I am trying to say. The State is going in violation of its own Constitution and perpetrating an attack. If you look at the recent report, the censured chapter in a recent report by the Panchayati Raj, it says so clearly: the State is being completely illegal in its actions. What do you suggest people should do when an army, a police, a paramilitary, an air force is going to start making war on the poor? Do you suggest that they should leave and live in camps and allow the rich and the corporates and the mining sector to take over? Karan Thapar: So you are saying that the Maoists and all the other resistance fighters are left with no option but to fight back? Arundhati Roy: What I am saying is that if a State respects non-violent resistance as has been the case in years, but if you ignore non-violence, by default you privilege violence. Karan Thapar: But are the Maoists actually pursuing their goal, which you share, non-violently, or are they pursuing it with violence? That's the problem. There is a real issue here that the end seems to justify the means. The question is: do they? Arundhati Roy: You are not listening to me. I am saying that there is a juggernaut of injustice that has been moving forward, displacing millions of people. Why do we have 836 million people living in on less than Rs 20 a day? Why do we have 60 million displaced people? Because the government refuses. For the last 25 years, it has refused to listen to non-violence. Karan Thapar: So you see the Maoists as victims? Arundhati Roy: I see the people as victims of something. If you look at the ideology of the Maoists, they don't think of themselves as victims. But that ideology is getting purchased among people, in the popular imagination because of the incredible injustice that is being perpetrated by the Indian State. Karan Thapar: In short, the fault is almost entirely on the government's side? Arundhati Roy: It is. Karan Thapar: You say that boldly and bluntly? Arundhati Roy: Absolutely. Karan Thapar: I want very much to talk about the prospects of talks but first, let me ask you about Azad. In May, it emerged that the home minister had asked Swami Agnivesh to facilitate talks with the Maoist leadership, and in turn he established contacts with the Maoists leader Azad. But in July, in an unexplained police encounter, Azad suddenly died. Do you believe that was a deliberate ploy to bring Azad into the open and then murder him? Arundhati Roy: Yes I do. Karan Thapar: You really mean that? The government laid a trap to murder Azad? Arundhati Roy: That's what, from all the facts that are emerging, that's what it seems to point to. Karan Thapar: Why did they do this? Why would they kill the one man with whom they have rational expectations of talks? Arundhati Roy: I have been saying this for few months now that you have to understand that the government needs this war. It needs this war to clear the land, to hand over, to actualise these MoUs that have been signed. If you read the business papers, they are very clear about that. Karan Thapar: If the government wants war, how do you interpret the government's attempt to have talks? One is contradictory to the other. Arundhati Roy: Yeah. It needs the war but it needs to keep this smiling benign mask of democracy. So, it offers talks on the one hand and undermines it on the other. Karan Thapar: But even if you accept this strange theory that the government is Janus-faced, two-faced, why would it destroy that mask by killing Azad? Why would it destroy itself? Arundhati Roy: Because if you look at what was happening, Azad was beginning to sound dangerously reasonable. Karan Thapar: To whom? Arundhati Roy: To all of us. Karan Thapar: On the basis of one interview to The Hindu, you have come to the conclusion about Azad sounding reasonable? Arundhati Roy: Come on Karan, we all know about Azad. He has been around for years. He has written a lot. Karan Thapar: You may but people surely don't. To them, Azad is a mystery. Arundhati Roy: No, not at all. For example, the piece that he wrote in Outlook, it was published after his death but it was sent around before. Karan Thapar: But even if one accepts your theory that the government killed Azad because he was beginning to sound and look reasonable, that would only have made him a credible interlocutor and fit in better into their mask. Surely, that in a sense makes it even more ridiculously contradictory to kill him. Arundhati Roy: Why would it be. Let's say there are two sides at war, there are more than two but everyone wants to make it binary so, for the sake of argument, accept it. When one side sends an envoy and the other side kills them, what does it mean? That one side does not want peace. That's what it means. That's a reasonable assumption. Karan Thapar: So this is a duplicitous government? Arundhati Roy: Absolutely. Karan Thapar: In which case, let me come to the critical issue which I want to discuss. What are the prospects of talks? The government has repeatedly said that it would be willing to talk provided the Maoists abjure violence, not even asking the Maoists to lay down arms, and many people believe that that's a reasonable and perhaps, even a generous offer. How do you view the government's position on talks? Arundhati Roy: I think that if you were to go down to those forests and see what's going on, when you have these two hundred thousand paramilitaries patrolling the tribal villages, the cordon and search operations are on, the killings are on, the siege is on, what do you mean to abjure violence? If you say that there should be a ceasefire, mutual ceasefire, which is I think the most reasonable thing, then we can be talking. But if you say you should abjure violence, what does that mean? Karan Thapar: So one sided abjuring of violence is not what you think will be acceptable, but a mutual ceasefire on both sides? Arundhati Roy: I think it's absolutely urgent that there should be a ceasefire on both sides. Karan Thapar: Simultaneous? Arundhati Roy: Yes. The government reports have said that these MoUs should be re-examined. Chidambaram himself promised in an interview that he would freeze them. Why doesn't he do that? Karan Thapar: He is probably waiting for a sign from the Maoists that they will respond. He doesn't want to do it unilaterally. Arundhati Roy: They responded in writing now; Azad responded in writing. Karan Thapar: Azad is no more. Let me put this to you. You are beginning to suggest in this interview steps, which if they were taken simultaneously by both sides, will actually in some way facilitate talks. Would you be prepared, since you know the Maoists and trusted by the Maoists, to act as a mediator? Arundhati Roy: Look, if you studied the peace-talks process in Andhra, you see that this business of picking one person and announcing it on the media, both sides have done it. Chidambaram has picked arbitrarily Swami Agnivesh. Maoists arbitrarily announced on the radio that we want this one or that one. That's not how it works. In Andhra, it took almost a year for this committee of citizens to form themselves as responsible people. It should not be one person. Karan Thapar: Swami Agnivesh, who you say was arbitrarily picked, almost succeeded in bringing Azad to some talking point, except for the fact that as you say, he was killed. But he almost succeeded. So I come back, since you are trusted by the Maoists and since you speak a language, that at least in English, the government can understand, would you be prepared to act as a mediator? Arundhati Roy: Look Karan, I don't think it should be one person. I think there should be a group of people who are used to taking decisions collectively. Karan Thapar: Will a committee? Arundhati Roy: Absolutely. That's what happened in Andhra. There was a committee of persons. Karan Thapar: Isn't that a mess? Arundhati Roy: No, it is absolutely vital. Karan Thapar: Would you be a part of it? Arundhati Roy: I don't think I am good at it. I am a maverick. Karan Thapar: Would you be prepared to be one of that committee? Arundhati Roy: Not really. I would not like to be because I don't think I have those skills. But I think there are people who would be very good at it. Karan Thapar: In June, writing in The Hindu, Justice Krishna Aiyar publicly called on the Maoists to unconditionally come forward for talks. Would you make a similar statement? Arundhati Roy: No. Not when there are two hundred thousand paramilitary forces closing in on the villages. I say unconditionally both sides should say there should be a ceasefire. Then you can see. Karan Thapar: But you are not prepared to facilitate that being a mediator or, even part of the committee. Arundhati Roy: I'll try. Karan Thapar: Try! So suddenly you are changing your position. Arundhati Roy: I don't know how to think about this. Karan Thapar: If pushed and persuaded, you could accept. Arundhati Roy: Look, you talk to me like you talk to politicians - will you stand for elections? Karan Thapar: No, I am simply trying to get you to give me a clear answer. What I sense is that you are tempted but you are uncertain. Arundhati Roy: I feel that all of us should do what we can but certainly, I don't feel that I'll be very good at it. But, I think there should be a committee of people with experience in negotiating, with experienced people like BD Sharma, who has such a long experience. Karan Thapar: Let's come to a different issue. The government, particularly the home minister, often look upon people who are sympathetic to Maoists' cause as collaborators, sections of the press even call them traitors. Number one in that category is bound to be Arundhati Roy. How do you respond to such branding? Arundhati Roy: Well, this is an old game. Karan Thapar: But it continues forcefully every time. Arundhati Roy: I think the reason they were also unnerved, the government as well as most of the press, which is clearly on one side in this, is that from being people who are marooned in the jungle in one sense, when operation Green Hunt happened, a number of activists, a number of intellectuals came forward and said look, it is not acceptable to us. And that undermined the position of this open and shut case that was going on all this time. Karan Thapar: So the certainty of the government's position was weakened and undermined by the intellectuals who supported the government which is why the government branded them collaborators? Arundhati Roy: Again you are saying the Maoists. Karan Thapar: But that's why the government called them collaborators? Arundhati Roy: What has happened is that the government has expanded the definition of Maoists to mean everyone who is disagreeing with it. What people like myself have done is to complicate the scenario. Say it's not that simple. Of course it doesn't upset me because I like to say what I think very clearly. I am not worried about being called names. Karan Thapar: And in a sense the government calling you a collaborator is proof that you actually made the government uncomfortable. Arundhati Roy: I am proud if I made the government uncomfortable because it should be bloody uncomfortable with what it's doing. Karan Thapar: A pleasure talking to you. Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 863-9977 www.Freedomarchives.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From news at freedomarchives.org Tue Sep 14 10:22:03 2010 From: news at freedomarchives.org (Anti-Imperialist News) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 07:22:03 -0700 Subject: [News] Photographer Ernest Withers doubled as FBI informant to spy on civil rights movement Message-ID: Photographer Ernest Withers doubled as FBI informant to spy on civil rights movement He provided agency with insider's view of volatile period By Marc Perrusquia http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2010/sep/12/photographer-ernest-withers-fbi-informant/?print=1 Sunday, September 12, 2010 At the top of the stairs he saw the blood, a large pool of it, splashed across the balcony like a grisly, abstract painting. Instinctively, Ernest Withers raised his camera. This wasn't just a murder. This was history. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stood here a few hours earlier chatting with aides when a sniper squeezed off a shot from a hunting rifle. Now, as night set over Memphis, Withers was on the story. Slipping past a police barricade, the enterprising Beale Street newsman made his way to room 306 at the Lorraine Motel -- King's room -- and walked in. Ralph Abernathy and the others hardly blinked. After all, this was Ernest C. Withers. He'd marched with King, and sat in on some of the movement's sensitive strategy meetings. A veteran freelancer for America's black press, Withers was known as "the original civil rights photographer," an insider who'd covered it all, from the Emmett Till murder that jump-started the movement in 1955 to the Little Rock school crisis, the integration of Ole Miss and, now, the 1968 sanitation strike that brought King to Memphis and his death. As other journalists languished in the Lorraine courtyard, Withers' camera captured the scene: Bernard Lee, tie undone, looking weary yet fiery. Andrew Young raising his palm to keep order. Ben Hooks and Harold Middlebrook gazing pensively as King's briefcase sits nearby, opened, as if awaiting his return. The grief-stricken aides photographed by Withers on April 4, 1968, had no clue, but the man they invited in that night was an FBI informant -- evidence of how far the agency went to spy on private citizens in Memphis during one of the nation's most volatile periods. Withers shadowed King the day before his murder, snapping photos and telling agents about a meeting the civil rights leader had with suspected black militants. He later divulged details gleaned at King's funeral in Atlanta, reporting that two Southern Christian Leadership Conference staffers blamed for an earlier Beale Street riot planned to return to Memphis "to resume ... support of sanitation strike'' -- to stir up more trouble, as the FBI saw it. The April 10, 1968, report, which identifies Withers only by his confidential informant number -- ME 338-R -- is among numerous reports reviewed by The Commercial Appeal that reveal a covert, previously unknown side of the beloved photographer who died in 2007 at age 85. Those reports portray Withers as a prolific informant who, from at least 1968 until 1970, passed on tips and photographs detailing an insider's view of politics, business and everyday life in Memphis' black community. As a foot soldier in J. Edgar Hoover's domestic intelligence program, Withers helped the FBI gain a front-row seat to the civil rights and anti-war movements in Memphis. Much of his undercover work helped the FBI break up the Invaders, a Black Panther-styled militant group that became popular in disaffected black Memphis in the late 1960s and was feared by city leaders. Yet, Withers focused on mainstream Memphians as well. Personal and professional details of Church of God in Christ Bishop G.E. Patterson (then a pastor with a popular radio show), real estate agent O.W. Pickett, politician O. Z. Evers and others plumped FBI files as the bureau ran a secret war on militancy. When community leader Jerry Fanion took cigarettes to jailed Invaders, agents took note. Agents wrote reports when Catholic Father Charles Mahoney befriended an Invader, when car dealer John T. Fisher offered jobs to militants, when Rev. James Lawson planned a trip to Czechoslovakia and when a schoolteacher loaned his car to a suspected radical. Each report has a common thread -- Withers. As a so-called racial informant -- one who monitored race-related politics and "hate'' organizations -- Withers fed agents a steady flow of information. Records indicate he snapped and handed over photos of St. Patrick Catholic Church priests who supported the city's striking sanitation workers; he monitored political candidates, jotted down auto tag numbers for agents, and once turned over a picture of an employee of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission said to be "one who will give aid and comfort to the black power groups." In an interview this year, that worker said she came within a hearing of losing her job. "It's something you would expect in the most ruthless, totalitarian regimes,'' said D'Army Bailey, a retired Memphis judge and former activist who came under FBI scrutiny in the '60s. The spying touched a nerve in black America and created mistrust that many still struggle with 40 years later. "Once that trust is shattered that doesn't go away,'' Bailey said. In addition to spying on citizens, Hoover's FBI ran a covert operation, called COINTELPRO, a counterintelligence or "dirty tricks'' program that attempted to disrupt radical movements. It did this with tactics such as leaking embarrassing details to the news media, targeting individuals with radical views for prosecution or trying to get them fired from jobs. First launched in the 1950s to fight communism, by 1967 it was aimed at a range of civil rights leaders and organizations deemed to be threats to national security. Congressional inquiries later exposed it for widespread abuse of personal and political freedoms, including a fierce campaign against King. Yet much of the detail of the FBI's domestic spying, including the inner workings of its informant network in Memphis, remain untold. Tracing Withers' steps through thousands of pages of federal records reveals substantial new details about the extent of the FBI's surveillance of private citizens. In Withers, who ran a popular Beale Street photography studio frequented by the powerful and ordinary alike, the FBI found a super-informant, one who, according to an FBI report, proved "most conversant with all key activities in the Negro community.'' "He was the perfect source for them. He could go everywhere with a perfect, obvious professional purpose,'' said Pulitzer Prize-winning historian David Garrow, who, along with retired Marquette University professor Athan Theoharis, reviewed the newspaper's findings. Many political informants from the civil rights era were unwitting, unpaid dupes. Yet Withers, who was assigned a racial informant number and produced a large volume of confidential reports, fits the profile of a closely supervised, paid informant, experts say. "It would be shocking to me that he wasn't paid,'' said Theoharis, author of the books "Spying on Americans" and "The Boss: J. Edgar Hoover and the Great American Inquisition". "Once you get to this level if you're a criminal informant versus a source of information they're at a higher level. They're controlled. They're supervised,'' said Theoharis, who discerns a valuable lesson in the revelation of Withers' political spying. "It speaks to the problem of secrecy. The government is able to do things in the shadows that are really questionable. That goes to the heart of our (democratic) society.'' It's uncertain what impact the revelation will have on Withers' legacy. The photographer was lionized in the final years of his life. Four books of his photography were published, exhibits of his work made international tours and a building on Beale Street was named for him. Congressman Steve Cohen proposed a yet-unfunded $396,000 earmark for a museum, set to open next month, to preserve Withers' archives. Yet, even 40 years after the fact, the FBI still aggressively guards the secret of Withers' activities. The one record that would pinpoint the breadth and detail of his undercover work -- his informant file -- remains sealed. The Justice Department has twice rejected the newspaper's Freedom of Information requests to copy that file, and won't even acknowledge the file exists. Responding to the newspaper's requests, the government instead released 369 pages related to a 1970s public corruption probe that targeted Withers -- by then a state employee who was taking payoffs -- carefully redacting references to informants -- with one notable exception. Censors overlooked a single reference to Withers' informant number. That number, in turn, unlocked the secret of the photographer's 1960s political spying when the newspaper located repeated references to the number in other FBI reports released under FOIA 30 years ago. Those reports -- more than 7,000 pages comprising the FBI's files on the 1968 sanitation strike and a 1968-70 probe of the Invaders -- at times pinpoint specific actions by Withers and in other instances show he was one of several informants contributing details. Witness accounts and Withers' own photos provided further corroborating details. "This is the first time I've heard of this in my life,'' said daughter Rosalind Withers, trustee of her father's photo collection, who said she wants to see documentation before commenting at length. "My father's not here to defend himself. That is a very, very, strong, strong accusation. " A son, Rome Withers, who runs his own Memphis photography business, said he, too, was unaware of his father's secret FBI work, but doesn't believe it diminishes his courageous work documenting the civil rights movement. "He had been harassed, beaten, shot at. He was a victim'' who often faced hostile mobs and violent police forces. "At that time, when you are the only black on the scene, you're in an intimidating state.'' Andrew Young, now 78, said he isn't bothered that Withers secretly worked as an informant while snapping civil rights history. "I always liked him because he was a good photographer. And he was always (around)," he said. Young viewed Withers as an important publicity tool because his work often appeared in Jet magazine and other high-profile publications. The movement was transparent and didn't have anything to hide anyway, he said. "I don't think Dr. King would have minded him making a little money on the side.'' * * * There was a time in 1968 and 1969 when Lance "Sweet Willie Wine'' Watson was considered the most dangerous man in Memphis. As "prime minister'' of the Invaders, a self-styled militant organization whose rhetoric included overthrowing the government, Watson frightened black and white Memphians alike. The FBI assembled a huge file on him. Today, Watson, who goes by the name Suhkara Yahweh, is more conciliatory. He runs a community development organization in his impoverished South Memphis neighborhood and ministers to youths and the needy. Still, he decorates his living room with mementos: A bumper sticker reading "Damn the Army, Join the Invaders''; a glass case containing a military-styled jacket with "Invaders'' emblazoned on the back; and a portrait of Ernest Withers displayed prominently over his fireplace. "That's my daddy,'' Yahweh, 71, said one afternoon last winter, relating how Withers often gave him money and advice. "If he was (an informant) I don't know anything about it ... He would call me his son. Right now, I'm still part of the family. I talked to Rome (son Andrew Jerome Withers) just the other day. I talked to (Ernest) on his death bed.'' It's a testament to the FBI's effectiveness that the dreaded "Willie Wine'' had no clue that Withers was constantly informing on him. Wine was in Atlanta possibly to "con'' money out of the SCLC, reports indicate the informant told agents. He reported Wine's girlfriend was pregnant; that Wine was a thief. That Wine and his cohorts had cat-called voting rights activist Fannie Lou Hamer at a gathering at old Club Paradise. As informant ME 338-R, Withers had plenty to tell the FBI in November 1968 when Willie Wine and others seized the administration building at LeMoyne-Owen College. What started as a dispute over student grievances escalated into rebellion when student leaders called in the Invaders and the local chapter of the radical anti-war group, Students for a Democratic Society. Withers, who shot pictures of the crisis for Jet and was seen by newsmen going into Brown Lee Hall the night of the takeover, told FBI agents that Wine planned and directed the operation. ME 338-R said the building was held "in a state of siege'' with school president Hollis Price inside, according to a Nov. 27, 1968, FBI report. Although local news accounts made no mention of weapons, the informant said occupants "definitely had a single-barrel 12-gauge shotgun, a rifle with a telescopic sight, a bayonet, at least one Derringer, and one pistol'' -- details confirmed by another FBI source that night and Willie Wine 42 years later. "I carried a .25-caliber pistol,'' the ex-militant recalled. The only time he used his gun that night was when another Invader rifled through an administrator's cabinet. "I pulled out my pistol. I said we're not here for that purpose,'' he said. No charges were filed after officials at the private school chose not to prosecute. Over time, however, the FBI would break the Invaders. Utilizing tips from Withers and other informants plus three undercover Memphis police officers who had infiltrated the group, authorities prosecuted as many as 34 Invaders on charges ranging from petty street crime to arson and the sniper wounding of a police officer. Although one undercover cop was famously exposed, the Invaders seemed to have little clue about Withers, who often visited the group's headquarters on Vance and shot publicity photos for them. "Ernest, he was a dear friend," said Charles Cabbage, who founded the Invaders in 1967. Like Wine, Cabbage kept a memento on the wall, a picture Withers took in 1968 of Cabbage as a radical. "Anytime he'd see us, he'd start snapping," Cabbage recalled. Cabbage, interviewed last winter, four months before his death in June at age 66, said he'd come to wonder what Withers was really doing. "C'mon man. We weren't that interesting. Why would he take our pictures constantly?" As the FBI cast its net, it encountered a range of people whose beliefs and personal details landed in the bureau's spy files despite little more than a tangential connection to the Invaders. An Aug. 7, 1969, report shows the FBI collected 14 photographs of Father Charles Mahoney of St. Patrick Catholic Church. Notations on the report, along with other corroborating details, indicate Withers shot the photos and handed them over to agents. The report quotes the informant as saying Mahoney "is a close friend'' of Invaders defense minister Melvin Smith and notes that Mahoney and two other priests allowed the Invaders to use church facilities. "The FBI was off base on the civil rights thing,'' one of those priests, Charles Martin, said in a recent interview. An urban outreach ministry brought St. Patrick in regular contact with the Invaders. And when the priests there openly supported the sanitation strike, there was a backlash, Martin said. "We were for the workers, the sanitation workers. And a lot of people in the town didn't like us for that.'' * * * The Rev. James M. Lawson came into the FBI's focus in early 1968 during the height of the sanitation strike. It was Lawson, then pastor at Centenary Methodist, who invited Dr. King to Memphis, where he spoke in support of 1,100 sanitation workers who had walked off the job to protest low pay and horrid working conditions that led to the deaths of two men. "If one black person is down, we are all down!'' King told 15,000 cheering people at Mason Temple the night of March 18, 1968. Near the speaker's podium, the ubiquitous Withers snapped photos. Images he shot that night would stand as timeless icons of the strike alongside those he took of marching sanitation workers carrying "I Am A Man'' placards and National Guard troops policing Downtown streets. But the stout photographer with a chatty personality and quick smile had another, nonpublic, appointment that day, a secret meeting in which the topic was his friend, Rev. Lawson. Earlier that afternoon, Withers met with FBI agents Howell Lowe and William H. Lawrence, who ran the bureau's Memphis domestic surveillance program. A report summarizing the meeting indicates informant ME 338-R handed over a newsletter listing names and photographs of community leaders behind the strike -- a virtual directory of strike-support organizers -- and told agents who produced it. "Informant pointed out that the paper is printed or laid out by Rev. Malcolm D. Blackburn ... pastor of Clayborn AME Temple ... The main editorial work therein is done by Rev. James M. Lawson Jr.,'' the report said. Withers had a lot to say about Lawson, a veteran civil rights leader and friend who marched during the strike alongside Withers' wife, Dorothy, and his daughter, Rosalind. He portrayed Lawson as the type of left-leaning radical the government had come to fear -- active in the anti-war movement, involved with the feared Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and someone who was planning a trip to the East Bloc nation of Czechoslovakia. "I'm not surprised,'' Lawson, now 81, said this month when told of Withers' informant work. Lawson said "the police and FBI were very clever about entrapping'' blacks and making them informants. "Any activity in the black community, Ernie was going to be around,'' Lawson said. "It was probably done innocently: 'You just tell us what's going on and what you see and you get paid for it.' '' Lawson's was one of many biographies the informant would flesh out for agents. Reports linked to Withers show he was a font of information for the FBI during the strike, handing over documents, providing details from strategy meetings, connecting dots between pastors and suspected militants. The informant told agents on March 6 that young militants -- Cabbage among them -- passed out literature at a rally at Clayborn Temple with instructions for making Molotov cocktail firebombs. Mainstream leaders "did nothing'' to stop them, the report said. On April 3, the day before King's murder, the informant passed on details about a high-level strategy session at the Lorraine between Cabbage and King, who begrudgingly decided to give the young militants a role in the strike. Well into the summer, after the strike was settled, ME 338-R continued to report on its impact. That July 26, the informant gave FBI agents a financial report showing the strike-leadership group, Community on the Move for Equality, had spent $2,600 of $347,000 raised for striking workers to pay attorney's fees and expenses for members of the militant Black Organizing Project, an umbrella group encompassing the Invaders. As Hoover cranked up his campaign against "black nationalist hate groups,'' anyone giving aid -- money, jobs, political support -- could fall into the crosshairs of COINTELPRO, the FBI's dirty tricks campaign. The FBI had been spying on the civil rights movement for years, but in an August 1967 memo, backed by a more thorough order the following March, the bureau directed Memphis and other field offices to begin efforts to "to expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit or otherwise neutralize" a range of civil rights leaders and organizations, from the separatist Nation of Islam to King's moderate SCLC. In May 1968 a similar initiative was launched against the so-called "New Left,'' targeting Vietnam War protesters and socialists, among others. A U.S. Senate investigation in 1975 found widespread abuse in the program, which lacked statutory or executive approval. COINTELPRO techniques ranged from contacting an employer to get a target fired to mailing an anonymous letter to a spouse alleging infidelity, leaking humiliating information to the press, encouraging street warfare between violent groups and alerting state and local authorities to a target's criminal law violations. Available records provide few details on specific COINTELPRO actions taken in Memphis. Yet, records indicate Withers fed agents plenty of raw material. A schoolteacher loaned militant Cabbage his car, the informant said. Mary L. Campbell, a supposed black-power sympathizer, was running for the county Democratic Party's executive committee. Real estate agent O.W. Pickett, who'd brought food to the Invaders during the LeMoyne takeover, was thinking of running for Congress. Pastor Malcolm Blackburn and activist Baxton Bryant were trying to find jobs for the Invaders. A May 13, 1968, report indicates Withers gave the FBI two photos of Rosetta Miller, a field worker for the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, telling an agent she is "one who will give aid and comfort to the black power groups." Following up that fall, an agent typed a two-sentence report memorializing a rumor that Miller had recently married, noting the marriage broke up after just a week. The report was copied to Withers' informant file. Interviewed this spring, Miller, who now lives in Nashville, said her job with the commission came into jeopardy in 1968 when supervisors questioned her about ties to radicals. "I was never part of that crap," she said. Marquette's Theoharis, who worked with the Senate committee that exposed many of the FBI's abuses, said employment sabotage was a particularly insidious COINTELPRO tactic. "Once, (the FBI) got someone dismissed as a Girl Scout leader. It was crazy," he said. Records reviewed by the newspaper offered few details of the secretive COINTELPRO initiative. Yet, frustrated by continuing support for the Invaders, the FBI clearly was considering such actions in May 1969 against the African Methodist Episcopal Church. "All sources have been alerted to attempt to pinpoint any actual proof that employees of the AME Church are giving financial support to the Invaders," said a May 8, 1969, report to headquarters in Washington. "...If such proof is forthcoming separate communication will be written to the Bureau concerning any possible counterintelligence action which might be instituted with certain AME high church officials in this regard.'' * * * Available files don't indicate how or when Withers first teamed with the FBI. But it would have been hard for the bureau to have overlooked him. Withers served as a city police officer, hired in 1948 along with eight other African Americans who composed MPD's first black recruit class. He didn't last long. He was fired in 1951 for taking kickbacks from a bootlegger. By the early 1950s, Withers was making a name for himself on Beale Street, where he had operated since the mid-40s, chronicling the teeming night life and the everyday life of black Memphis. By night, he hung with bluesmen like B.B. King, Bobby "Blue'' Bland, Junior Parker and Rufus Thomas and, by day, he shot family portraits, weddings, church socials, political gatherings and sporting events, assembling one of the great Negro League baseball portfolios. "He knew everybody," recalled Coby Smith, a political activist who founded the Invaders with Cabbage and who would come to form his own suspicions. Across the street from Withers' studio, attorney H.T. Lockard ran a law office. When Lockard became president of the Memphis branch of the NAACP in 1955, a visitor started coming by -- Bill Lawrence of the FBI. In an interview for this story, Lockard, now a 90-year-old retired judge, spoke for the first time about his three-year association with Lawrence, a bespectacled G-man who came to Memphis in 1945 and ran the bureau's local domestic intelligence operations in the 1950s and '60s. In the '50s, as the Red scare was at its peak, the FBI kept close watch on the NAACP and other civil rights organizations believed susceptible to communist infiltration. "Because of the nature of the work I was doing, there was a suspicious feeling that I was either a communist or a communist sympathizer," Lockard said. Like so many others recruited by the FBI, Lockard said agent Lawrence showed up uninvited and made regular unannounced visits to his law office with no evident purpose. "One stock question was how was I getting along,'' he said. Over a period, the agent asked if a certain suspected communist had joined the local NAACP. Eventually, the man named by Lawrence applied for membership. Lockard said he declined to enroll him. It's unclear if the FBI considered Lockard an informant. He said he was never paid. The FBI visits stopped in 1957, when Lockard left the NAACP helm, yet he said he developed "an amiable camaraderie'' with Lawrence that included exchanging Christmas cards for years after the agent retired in 1970. Lawrence died in 1990. Around the time Lawrence began calling on Lockard, Withers began his long and remarkable career chronicling the civil rights movement. In 1955, Withers covered the murder of Emmett Till, a 14-year-old African American who was beaten, shot and tossed in a river in Money, Miss., for whistling at a white woman. The injustice of the crime -- the defendants, both white, were acquitted by an all-white jury yet later confessed in a paid magazine interview -- built the foundation of Withers' fame. Defying a judge's order that banned picture-taking during the trial, Withers captured the moment Till's great-uncle Mose Wright stood up at the witness stand and pointed an accusing finger at the killers. The Till case helped galvanize the movement, and Withers soon had a wide array of assignments covering civil rights. As a freelancer for the Sengstacke family, publishers of the Chicago Defender and the Tri-State Defender in Memphis, Withers covered many of the seminal events of the era. He was beaten by police covering Medgar Evers' 1963 funeral and harassed in small-town Mississippi following the 1964 murders of three Freedom Summer activists in Neshoba County. He snapped pictures of King and Abernathy riding the first integrated bus in Montgomery in 1956 and photographed King in 1966 casually reclining in his room at the Lorraine where he would die two years later. Trained in photography in the Army during World War II and equipped with a bulky twin reflex camera, Withers lacked technical skill yet managed to take profoundly powerful images, largely through his resourcefulness and unusual access. Locally, Withers chronicled all the significant events, the Tent City voter registration drive in Fayette County, the desegregation of Memphis City Schools and the Downtown sit-ins of 1960. It was around then that the FBI's Lawrence began showing up at the NAACP offices, recalls Maxine Smith, the organization's longtime executive director in Memphis. "We thought it was for our protection. We had nothing to hide,'' Smith said. "Somewhere along the line we began to suspect'' differently, she said. What Smith and others didn't know was that by 1963 the FBI had begun wiretapping King, initially because of the civil rights leader's ties to adviser Stanley Levison, a suspected communist. The FBI tapped King's phones, bugged his hotel rooms and, in one infamous episode, mailed surreptitious audio recordings including a taped sexual liaison to his Atlanta home along with a letter suggesting he commit suicide. By 1967, as more-militant wings spun out of the movement, the FBI launched a "ghetto informant program'' recruiting "listening posts'' within the black community, many of them white shopkeepers and businessmen. Increasingly, headquarters pushed agents like Lawrence to develop information from black leaders. "He used to come out here a whole lot, right here,'' Smith said in the living room of her South Parkway home. Smith told how Lawrence, a music lover, fostered a relationship through her late husband Vasco Smith's expansive jazz collection. When a 1981 book revealed the couple's relationship to the FBI, the Smiths sued -- and lost. Still passionate about the issue, Smith argues she and her husband were never paid. "Nobody has ever offered Vasco or me one penny. No one dare say that,'' she said. Benjamin Hooks, the former national NAACP director, agreed with her assessment. "I don't know if anyone is trying to say they were snitches. If that's what they're saying that is a lie," Hooks said in January, 11 weeks before he died. "You couldn't stop the FBI from coming and talking to you. If you did, they'd make it up anyway. They were talking to Maxine and Vasco and Hooks all the time.'' When details of the FBI's domestic spy program later leaked in congressional hearings, officials said there were just five paid racial informants working in Memphis in 1968. Officials have never disclosed the identities of those informants; it's unknown if Withers was included in that group. "I'd like to know who those devils are," Smith said. * * * Perhaps the last man with firsthand knowledge of Withers' covert life, retired FBI agent Howell Lowe, opted to take his secrets to the grave. "I won't have my name connected with this," Lowe told a reporter last year, rejecting an interview for this story. He died Jan. 1 at age 83. Although Withers had died two years earlier, Lowe said he feared that discussing the photographer's informant work might harm his survivors. "Some of the things we did were sleazy. We were fighting what we thought was the possibility of uprising in this country,'' Lowe said. Lost, too, to history are Withers' motives. A federal source who first told a reporter about the photographer's secret life several years ago said Withers, who raised eight children and struggled financially, had a primary motive -- money. That same source said Withers' secret informant status came dangerously close to exposure in 1978 when Congress re-examined the FBI's investigation of King's assassination. At the time, revelations about COINTELPRO and the FBI's treatment of King caused many Americans to wonder if Hoover's hatred of the civil rights leader somehow morphed into an assassination plot. The U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations eventually found the FBI had nothing to do with the murder. Yet, with the FBI's Memphis office on trial, Lowe's partner, agent Lawrence, testified before the committee on Nov. 21, 1978, speaking of a valued informant who "provided information on racial matters generally and the Invaders in particular." The informant, paid up to $200 a month, helped track King in the days before his murder. Lawrence said he frequently gave his informant instructions ahead of time, giving him names and topics to look out for and conferring almost daily with him during the sanitation strike. "I would call him if I had occasion to alert him to something,'' Lawrence testified. "Otherwise, I would hope that he would call me, which he frequently did. Then periodically we would meet in person under what we hoped were safe conditions to personally exchange information, go over descriptions, any photographs, things of that nature.'' Was Lawrence discussing Withers? The congressional record is unclear. Nonetheless, as an FBI informant with a symbol number and a large volume of assignments, Withers would have been handled in a similar fashion, experts said. "These are individuals who are going to be directed and paid... They saw you as a valuable source and a continuing source,'' said Theoharis, the retired Marquette professor. Researchers who study the government informant system say patriotism, desire to do police work, thrill-seeking and money often are motivating factors. Withers had served in the Army in World War II. In addition to serving briefly as a police officer, he ran successfully for Shelby County constable in 1974 and later was appointed a gun-carrying agent of the Tennessee Alcoholic Beverages Commission. Withers' legal troubles also can't be discounted as a possible motive. Withers would claim late in life he was set up in the 1951 kickback incident while working for MPD, yet his police personnel file contains transcripts that reveal admissions by Withers and detailed witness accounts supporting the allegations. He was fired but never charged criminally. Years later, in 1979, he faced similar charges, this time in federal criminal court. Then-ABC agent Withers pleaded guilty to extorting kickbacks from a nightclub owner. Regardless of his motives, the revelation of Withers' FBI work doesn't harm his memory for some who knew him. "It does not alter who he was a person,'' said ex-Invader Coby Smith. "He did so many more things. That wasn't a fulltime thing to be an informant for them.'' Rev. Lawson agreed. "It won't tarnish his memory for his family and friends.'' -- Marc Perrusquia: 529-2545 ****************************************************** Civil Rights Photographer Unmasked as Informer http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/us/14photographer.html?_r=3&hp By ROBBIE BROWN ATLANTA ? That photo of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. riding one of the first desegregated buses in Montgomery, Ala.? He took it. The well-known image of black sanitation workers carrying ?I Am a Man? signs in Memphis? His. He was the only photojournalist to document the entire trial in the murder of Emmett Till, and he was there in Room 306 of the Lorraine Hotel, Dr. King?s room, on the night he was assassinated. But now an unsettling asterisk must be added to the legacy of Ernest C. Withers, one of the most celebrated photographers of the civil rights era: He was a paid F.B.I. informer. On Sunday, The Commercial Appeal in Memphis published the results of a two-year investigation that showed Mr. Withers, who died in 2007 at age 85, had collaborated closely with two F.B.I. agents in the 1960s to keep tabs on the civil rights movement. It was an astonishing revelation about a former police officer nicknamed the Original Civil Rights Photographer, whose previous claim to fame had been the trust he engendered among high-ranking civil rights leaders, including Dr. King. ?It is an amazing betrayal,? said Athan Theoharis, a historian at Marquette University who has written books about the F.B.I. ?It really speaks to the degree that the F.B.I. was able to engage individuals within the civil rights movement. This man was so well trusted.? From at least 1968 to 1970, Mr. Withers, who was black, provided photographs, biographical information and scheduling details to two F.B.I. agents in the bureau?s Memphis domestic surveillance program, Howell Lowe and William H. Lawrence, according to numerous reports summarizing their meetings. The reports were obtained by the newspaper under the Freedom of Information Act and posted on its Web site. A clerical error appears to have allowed for Mr. Withers?s identity to be divulged: In most cases in the reports, references to Mr. Withers and his informer number, ME 338-R, have been blacked out. But in several locations, the F.B.I. appears to have forgotten to hide them. The F.B.I. said Monday that it was not clear what had caused the lapse in privacy and was looking into the incident. Civil rights leaders have responded to the revelation with a mixture of dismay, sadness and disbelief. ?If this is true, then Ernie abused our friendship,? said the Rev. James M. Lawson Jr., a retired minister who organized civil rights rallies throughout the South in the 1960s. Others were more forgiving. ?It?s not surprising,? said Andrew Young, a civil rights organizer who later became mayor of Atlanta. ?We knew that everything we did was bugged, although we didn?t suspect Withers individually.? Many details of Mr. Withers?s relationship with the F.B.I. remain unknown. The bureau keeps files on all informers, but has declined repeated requests to release Mr. Withers?s, which would presumably explain how much he was paid by the F.B.I., how he was recruited and how long he served as an informer. At the time of his death, Mr. Withers had the largest catalog of any individual photographer covering the civil rights movement in the South, said Tony Decaneas, the owner of the Panopticon Gallery in Boston, the exclusive agent for Mr. Withers. His photographs have been collected in four books, and his family was planning to open a museum, named after him. His work shows remarkable intimacy with and access to top civil rights leaders. Friends used to say he had a knack for being in the right place at the right time. But while he was growing close to top civil rights leaders, Mr. Withers was also meeting regularly with the F.B.I. agents, disclosing details about plans for marches and political beliefs of the leaders, even personal information like the leaders? car tag numbers. David J. Garrow, a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian who has written biographies of Dr. King, said many civil rights workers gave confidential interviews to the F.B.I. and C.I.A., and were automatically classified as ?informants.? The difference, Mr. Garrow said, is the evidence that Mr. Withers was being paid. Although Mr. Withers?s motivation is not known, Mr. Garrow said informers were rarely motivated by the financial compensation, which ?wasn?t enough money to live on.? But Marc Perrusquia, who wrote the article for The Commercial Appeal, noted that Mr. Withers had eight children and might have struggled to support them. The children of Mr. Withers did not respond to requests for comment. But one daughter, Rosalind Withers, told local news organizations that she did not find the report conclusive. ?This is the first time I?ve heard of this in my life,? Ms. Withers told The Commercial Appeal. ?My father?s not here to defend himself. That is a very, very strong, strong accusation.? Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 863-9977 www.Freedomarchives.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From news at freedomarchives.org Tue Sep 14 10:27:01 2010 From: news at freedomarchives.org (Anti-Imperialist News) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 07:27:01 -0700 Subject: [News] Exporting Revolution, Revolutionary Models and Historical Facts Message-ID: Exporting Revolution, Revolutionary Models and Historical Facts Nelson P. Vald?s, for Cuba-L Analysis http://machetera.wordpress.com/2010/09/13/exporting-revolution-revolutionary-models-and-historical-facts/ ?I asked him [Fidel Castro] if he believed the Cuban model was still something worth exporting.? - Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic Blog, September 8, 2010 ?In their ravings they pretend that Cuba is an exporter of revolutions. In their sleepless business and usurers? minds they believe that revolutions can be sold and bought, rent or lent, export or import as one more [piece of] merchandise.? - Fidel Castro, February 4, 1962 ?We maintain that a revolution cannot be imported or exported. A socialist state cannot be established through artificial insemination or by the transplant of embryos. Revolution required the proper conditions developed within the very society, and only the people of the country can be its own creator.? ? Fidel Castro, December 7, 1989 ? Is there a ?Cuban model? of socialism? Apparently the rightwing thinks so; the left disagrees. The phrase ?Cuban model? is not a common occurrence in Cuban government servers. What exactly is a ?model?? The Collins Dictionary of Sociology defines ?model? as a ?simplification of complex reality? that avoids ?complicating factors.? As a rule of thumb I would claim that those who know little history [or sociology] tend to grasp for the term model when they are merely generalizing because they do not have much more to go on. This vague term leaves readers with no other choice but to reinforce their preconceptions about ?the Cuban model.? A model can also imply something that others ought to follow or copy. Nevertheless, it is possible to discern a number of features that have been fairly consistent and characteristic of the Cuban revolutionary experience. First, the Cuban revolution has stressed and continues to stress that national sovereignty is paramount and will be defended to the death and that no concessions will ever be made. That is certainly a central feature. Moreover, they have managed to survive US government dictates and pressures. Second, the Cuban revolution has created a political and social system that depends on mass mobilization. The extent and degree that mass mobilization has been used has changed over time. All the mass organizations in the island have been structured on the basis that people are organized to implement policy. In certain periods mass mobilization have been more used than at other times ? for example, in sugar harvest time, census taking, health campaigns, or nomination of candidates for political office. There are other examples that one could provide. But, should such features constitute a ?model?? Third, the Cuban revolution has followed a fairly practical, pragmatic and result-oriented approach in the organization of the economy. That has led a number of scholars to point out that Cuban revolutionary economic history could be organized in fairly distinct ?periods.? Usually the outsiders, particularly journalists and visitors who happen to have little knowledge of economics in general assume that in the island there has been just one economic arrangement in which everything flows from the top down and that output, prices, etc are simply part of a so-called command economy. Such characterization would be consistent with the movie Bananas, but it is hardly a description of the historical process. Consequently, people are shocked when they are informed that in Cuba hotel chains compete with one another on the prices offered to tourists. Outsiders do not realize that there is a budgetary system of finance and another financial system called c?lculo econ?mico, or a sistema empresarial. In fact, it is assumed that ?capitalist methods? are not used or that the opposite is true ? when outsiders assume that any item that is sold for a profit is an example of capitalism! Such economic ignorance is certainly quaint but leads to simplistic views and assumptions. The reality of the Cuban economic system is that there are over 100 flowers blooming at the same time ? to use a Chinese metaphor. One example should suffice: there are three types of cooperatives in the country?s agriculture; and there are also different types of state agricultural properties. Fourth, the Cuban revolutionary regime has developed a ?modelo medico;? that is, a medical approach that stresses the decentralization of medicinal services [the family doctor] as well as paying much more attention to prevention in order to avoid expensive medical treatment. THAT model, which also happens to be free of direct charge to the consumer, is indeed, a model that has been emulated and copied by countries throughout the world. But the model is not exported by the island; rather third countries import the personnel to have it in their own nation states. Fifth, there is a Cuban model as well in the use of highly educated professionals who generate money for the country by providing services as educators, technical personnel and other skilled labor abroad. The Cuban educational methods of teaching the illiterate and achieving very high positive results in elementary and secondary education constitute models that UNICEF and UNESCO have considered worthy of emulation. Sixth, the Cuban revolution certainly committed itself to as much social equality as possible ? thus a free health care, free education and free [or fairly cheap] child care. Since 1964, Cuba also has had a subsidized food distribution system. But that has changed over time as well. These programs have changed over time. Note: a portion of the Cuban military budget is self financed; is that a model to be emulated? There is no such a thing as a Cuban revolutionary model. The revolutionary regime has been pragmatic and changed over time, whenever circumstance required it, which is why it is possible to speak of different periods since 1959. Only those who are ill acquainted with the Cuban reality could come up with the assertion that there is an all encompassing, never changing Cuban model. Last, but not least: The Cuban process takes inspiration from over a century of self-definition and historical developments. The influence of Jos? Mart? in particular is essential for an understanding of contemporary Cuba. [This is a point provided to me by Professor John Kirk of Dalhousie University]. Needless to say, the United States government and its mass media and academic institutions do preach and compel the export of a neoliberal ?model? to the rest of the world. That model, of course, has not taken into account the unique histories and cultures of other societies. In the neoliberal paradigm, the model fits all nations states, all cultures and all needs. The neoliberal model in its claim to be global and universalistic dismisses the right of self determination and sovereignty. That is, in the final analysis, the core assumption of the questions made by Jeffrey Goldberg. Fidel Castro, on the other hand, has consistently supported the right of self determination ? including the right of each country to find its own path and way. The following colleagues provided useful comments and suggestions: Karen Wald, Machetera, Robert Sandels, John Kirk, Joseph Garcia, and Ned Sublette. 1 See: http://www.google.com/search?q=site:www.cuba.cu+%22modelo+cubano%22&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS259US260&ie=UTF-8&hl= ] Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 863-9977 www.Freedomarchives.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From news at freedomarchives.org Tue Sep 14 12:56:35 2010 From: news at freedomarchives.org (Anti-Imperialist News) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 09:56:35 -0700 Subject: [News] Gaza subjected to air strikes, water crisis Message-ID: Gaza subjected to air strikes, water crisis Report, The Electronic Intifada, 13 September 2010 http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article11517.shtml Three Palestinian farmers were killed by Israeli tank shelling late at night 12 September in the northernmost occupied Gaza Strip, along the no-go "buffer zone" enforced by the Israeli military. Al-Jazeera reported that a 91-year-old farmer, Ibrahim Abdullah Abu Saeed, and 20-year-old Ismael Walid Abu Audeh were killed immediately. Abu Saeed's 17-year-old grandson, Hossam Khaled Abu Saeed, was critically injured and died shortly afterwards ("Israeli shelling kills Palestinians," 12 September 2010). Israeli officials claim the three men were armed fighters, preparing to fire a rocket into Israel. The "buffer zone" Israel has imposed on Gaza land along the boundary with Israel has taken 35 percent of the territory's open agricultural land, according to a recent report by the United Nations Office of the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) ("Between the fence and a hard place," 19 August 2010). OCHA adds that between January 2009 and July 2010, 22 Palestinian civilians were killed by the Israeli military inside the "buffer zone," including six children. An additional 146 Palestinians, including 27 children, have been injured by live fire. These killings come on the heels of several concurrent air strikes launched by Israel over the occupied Gaza Strip on the evening of 9 September, on the eve of the Muslim celebration of Eid al-Fitr marking the end of the month of Ramadan. Israel says the attacks were in response to two rockets fired from armed resistance groups in Gaza earlier in the day, though no group claimed responsibility. According to Ma'an news agency, Israeli missiles struck Gaza City and the southern border city of Rafah, and another missile hit the northern town of Beit Hanoun ("Overnight air strikes hit Gaza, 5 said injured," 10 September 2010). Ma'an reported that five Palestinian security service officers were injured during the attacks on Gaza City, which struck a Hamas security compound. An additional Palestinian-fired rocket landed in the Negev desert following the Israeli air strikes, Ma'an added. These Israeli air strikes were the second round since the US-brokered peace talks resumed last week in Washington, DC. On 4 September, Israeli warplanes bombed two tunnels in Rafah, killing two Palestinians and wounding two others. On Sunday 12 September, a rocket fired from Gaza hit southern Israel without causing damage or casualties, the latest in a series of rockets fired from armed groups inside the Gaza Strip in the last week. Gaza families denied visits to prisoners Preceding the 9 September attacks by the Israeli military, a committee of Palestinian mothers of political prisoners held an annual rally outside the headquarters of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Gaza City, protesting the continued incarceration of their sons and daughters inside Israeli prisons. Ma'an reported that the group has held demonstrations and vigils on the eve of the Eid celebrations for the past four years ("Mothers of prisoners mark Eid in protest," 10 September 2010). As part of its broad-based policies of blockade against Gaza -- following the electoral victory of the Hamas party in 2006 -- Israel has prohibited Palestinians living inside the Gaza Strip from visiting their relatives in Israeli prisons. Recent estimates from Israeli human rights group B'Tselem indicate that more than 6,100 Palestinians from the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip are currently imprisoned in Israel (Statistics on Palestinians in the custody of the Israeli security forces). Water crisis Meanwhile, B'Tselem released an in-depth report on the expanding water crisis inside the occupied Gaza Strip, stating that 95 percent of the area's groundwater is polluted and unfit for human consumption as Israel's ongoing blockade prevents entry to essential industrial materials needed to repair the water infrastructure ("Water supplied in Gaza unfit for drinking; Israel prevents entry of materials needed to repair system," 23 August 2010). "Since it began its siege on the Gaza Strip, in June 2007, Israel has forbidden the entry of equipment and materials needed to rehabilitate the water and wastewater-treatment systems there," states B'Tselem. "The prohibition has remained despite the recent easing of the siege." Citing reports from the United Nations' Environment Program, the Palestinian Water Authority, the Coastal Municipalities Water Utility and international aid organizations, B'Tselem's report says that children are being especially affected by the water crisis in Gaza. The report references the over-pumping of groundwater, combined with poor wastewater management systems and the toxification of ground soil from waste disposal sites -- where asbestos, medical waste, oils and fuels were dumped after Israel's three-week attacks in 2008-09. As a result, according to B'Tselem, chemicals such as chlorides and nitrates are contributing to excessive diseases and internal injuries, especially in Gaza's children. Israeli air strikes during the winter attacks also damaged wastewater treatment plants in Gaza, and damaged thirty kilometers of water networks, eleven wells and six thousand residential water tanks. Reports estimate that the damage to the water infrastructure amounted to approximately $6 million. "According to international aid organizations, twenty percent of Gazan families have at least one child under age five who suffers from diarrhea as a result of polluted water," B'Tselem reports. "A UN study published in 2009 estimates that diarrhea is the cause of 12 percent of children's deaths in Gaza. The lack of potable drinking water is liable to cause malnutrition in children and affect their physical and cognitive development." "Since the beginning of the siege," adds B'Tselem, "Israel has prohibited the entry of equipment and materials that can be used to improve water quality and taste, and to develop and rehabilitate the water infrastructure and the wastewater treatment facilities in Gaza. The prohibition has remained in force even after the recent easing of restrictions, and despite the [Israeli government] Cabinet's decision to allow the entry of building materials for projects that have been approved by the Palestinian Authority and are supervised by international organizations. The equipment needed includes water pumps, pipes, generators, computers, building cement and chloride. Israel classifies these materials as dual-use items that are liable to be used for military purposes, and therefore prohibits their entry." B'Tselem called on the Israeli government to "immediately allow the entry of materials and equipment needed to rehabilitate and develop the water and wastewater treatment systems there." Siege on medical treatment Additionally, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) released a report on the effects of regular and sustained power cuts in the Gaza Strip on medical patients, especially those in need of kidney dialysis treatment ("Gaza: power cuts put lives at risk," 7 September 2010). During Israeli attacks in 2006, Gaza's sole power plant was destroyed. It was heavily damaged again during the strikes in 2008-09, and the ICRC reports that Palestinians in Gaza are deprived of electricity for seven to twelve hours a day on average. Finding spare parts to repair electricity generators at hospitals is often a "protracted process," reports the ICRC. "Several factors have led to this situation," explains Palina Asgeirsdottir, ICRC's health program manager in Gaza, in the report. "Years of armed conflict and occupation have made it extremely difficult just to keep up with routine maintenance and repairs on the generating equipment and electricity network, let alone to increase capacity to meet the growing needs." The ICRC adds that kidney patients face a shortage of medications they need, which, due to the blockade, are not readily available in Gaza. Asgeirsdottir states that "patients with chronic conditions need certain medication. Examples include drugs for kidney transplant patients, Factor VIII and IX for patients with hemophilia and special food for infants and children with food intolerance and digestive problems. Cancer patients have their treatment protocols interrupted. Without these drugs, patients suffer. They may even die." Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 863-9977 www.Freedomarchives.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From news at freedomarchives.org Wed Sep 15 10:11:35 2010 From: news at freedomarchives.org (Anti-Imperialist News) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 07:11:35 -0700 Subject: [News] SF Premiere of COINTELPRO 101 - Sun Oct 10th - 4 & 7pm Message-ID: [] The Freedom Archives and the Mission Cultural Center for Latino Arts present the new documentary COINTELPRO 101 Sunday, October 10th ? 4:00pm & 7:00pm ---------- Mission Cultural Center for Latino Arts 2868 Mission Street San Francisco, CA COINTELPRO 101 Freedom Archives' film COINTELPRO 101 exposes illegal surveillance, disruption, and outright murder committed by the US government in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. Cointelpro refers to the official FBI COunter INTELigence PROgram carried out to surveil, imprison, and eliminate leaders of social justice movements and to disrupt, divide, and destroy the movements as well. Many of the government's crimes are still unknown. Through interviews with activists who experienced these abuses firsthand, with rare historical footage, the film provides an educational introduction to a period of intense repression and draws relevant lessons for the present and future. To view the Trailer and more details about the film Sunday, October 10th at 4 & 7pm film screening ? program with Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz and Soffiyah Elijah suggested donation $10, youth $5 Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz is an International Indigenous Movement organizer and Veteran of Sixties? movements - historian, teacher, writer, author of Outlaw Woman: A Memoir of the War Years, 1960-1975. Soffiyah Elijah is a Clinical Instructor at the Criminal Justice Institute, Harvard Law School. As an attorney she has represented many political prisoners and activists in the US including Kwame Ture, Marilyn Buck, and Sundiata Acoli & is the legal advisor to the SF8. This event is wheelchair accessible. Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 863-9977 www.Freedomarchives.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From news at freedomarchives.org Fri Sep 17 11:02:10 2010 From: news at freedomarchives.org (Anti-Imperialist News) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:02:10 -0700 Subject: [News] The American Way of War Quiz Message-ID: The American Way of War Quiz This Was the War Month That Was (Believe It or Not) By Tom Engelhardt and Nick Turse Source: TomDispatch Friday, September 17, 2010 http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175294/tomgram%3A_engelhardt_and_turse%2C_the_wacky_world_of_american_war/ Yes, it would be funny if it weren?t so grim. After all, when it comes to squandering money and resources in strange and distant places (or even here at home), you can count on the practitioners of American-style war to be wildly over the top. Oh, those madcap Pentagon bureaucrats and the zany horde of generals and admirals who go with them! Give them credit: no one on Earth knows how to throw a war like they do -- and they never go home. In fact, when it comes to linking ?profligate? to ?war,? with all the lies, manipulations, and cost overruns that give it that proverbial pizzazz, Americans should stand tall. We are absolutely #1! Hence, the very first TomDispatch American Way of War Quiz. Admittedly, it covers only the last four weeks of war news you wouldn?t believe if it weren?t in the papers, but we could have done this for any month since October 2001. Now?s your chance to pit your wits (and your ability to suspend disbelief) against the best the Pentagon has to offer -- and we?re talking about all seventeen-and-a-half miles of corridors in that five-sided, five-story edifice that has triple the square footage of the Empire State Building. To weigh your skills on the TomDispatch Scales of War?, take the 11-question pop quiz below, checking your answers against ours (with accompanying explanations), and see if you deserve to be a four-star general, a gun-totin? mercenary, or a mere private. 1.With President Obama?s Afghan surge of 30,000 U.S. troops complete, an administration review of war policy due in December, and fears rising that new war commander General David Petraeus might then ask for more troops, what did the general do last week? a.He informed the White House that he now had too many troops for reasonable operations in Afghanistan and proposed that a drawdown begin immediately. b. He assured the White House that he was satisfied with the massive surge in troops (civilian employees, contractors, and CIA personnel) and would proceed as planned. c. He asked for more troops now. Correct answer: c. General Petraeus has already reportedly requested an extra mini-surge of 2,000 more troops from NATO, and probably from U.S. reserves as well, including more trainers for the Afghan military. In interviews as August ended, he was still insisting that he had ?the structures, people, concepts, and resources required to carry out a comprehensive civil-military counterinsurgency campaign.? But that was the summer silly season. This is September, a time for cooler heads and larger demands. 2.With President Obama?s announced July 2011 drawdown of U.S. troops in Afghanistan in mind, the Pentagon has already: a.Begun organizing an orderly early 2011 withdrawal of troops from combat outposts and forward operating bases to larger facilities to facilitate the president?s plan. b. Launched a new U.S. base-building binge in Afghanistan, including contracts for three $100 million facilities not to be completed, no less completely occupied, until late 2011. c. Announced plans to shut down Kandahar Air Base?s covered boardwalk, including a TGI Friday?s, a Kentucky Fried Chicken, and a Mamma Mia?s Pizzeria, and cancelled the opening of a Nathan?s Famous Hot Dogs as part of its preparations for an American drawdown. Correct answer: b. According to Walter Pincus of the Washington Post, construction is slated to begin on at least three $100 million air base projects -- ?a $100 million area at Shindand Air Base for Special Operations helicopters and unmanned intelligence and surveillance aircraft?; another $100 million to expand the airfield at Camp Dwyer, a Marine base in Helmand Province, also to support Special Operations forces; and a final $100 million for expanded air facilities at Mazar-e Sharif in northern Afghanistan. None of these projects are to be completed until well after July 2011. ?[R]equests for $1.3 billion in additional fiscal 2011 funds for multiyear construction of military facilities in Afghanistan are pending before Congress.? And fear not, there are no indications that the fast-food joints at Kandahar are going anywhere. 3.The U.S. military has more generals and admirals than: a.Al-Qaeda members in Yemen. b. Al-Qaeda members in Afghanistan. c. Al-Qaeda members in Pakistan. d. Al-Qaeda members in all three countries. Correct answer: a, b, c, and d. According to CIA Director Leon Panetta, there are 50 to 100 al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan, possibly less. Best estimates suggest that there are perhaps ?several hundred? al-Qaeda members in poverty-stricken, desertifying, strife-torn Yemen. There are also an estimated ?several hundred? members and leaders of the original al-Qaeda in the Pakistani borderlands. The high-end total for al-Qaeda members in the three countries, then, would be 800, though the actual figure could be significantly smaller. According to Ginger Thompson and Thom Shanker of the New York Times, the U.S. military has 963 generals and admirals, approximately 100 more than on September 11, 2001. (The average salary for a general, by the way, is $180,000, which means that the cost of these ?stars,? not including pensions, health-care plans, and perks, is approximately $170 million a year.) The U.S. military has 40 four-star generals and admirals at the moment, which may represent more star-power than there are al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has suggested that, as a belt-tightening measure, he might cut the top-heavy U.S. military by 50 positions -- that is, by half the increase since 9/11. 4.With the U.S. military obliged, by agreement with the Iraqi government, to withdraw all U.S. military personnel from Iraq by the end of 2011, the Pentagon has: a.Decided that, in the interests of Iraqi sovereignty and to save U.S. taxpayers money, all U.S. troops will depart ahead of schedule, leaving Iraq no later than next February. b. Instituted austerity measures, halted renovations on remaining American bases, and handed over all base construction efforts to the Iraqi government. c. Continued to sink hundreds of millions of dollars into military base improvements. Correct answer: c. Jackie Soohen recently toured Balad Air Base in Central Iraq for Democracy Now! That base, described in the past as an American town, has, she points out, ?three large gyms, multiple shopping centers, recreation areas, and a movie theater,? not to speak of multiple bus routes and the usual range of fast-food parlors, PXs, and the like. The base, she reports, is still expanding and ?on bases like this one..., the military continues to invest hundred of millions in infrastructure improvements, and it is difficult to imagine them fully abandoning everything they are building here.? They are, in fact, not likely to do so anytime soon. There are still more than 5,800 U.S. Air Force personnel in Iraq. Thanks to previous American policies, that country, which once had a large air force, today has only a rudimentary one. The new Iraqi air force is now eager to purchase its first jet fighters, F-16s from Lockheed Martin, but no agreement has been signed or date set for delivery. The Iraqis will still need further years of pilot training to fly those planes when they do arrive in 2013 or later. In the meantime, the U.S. Air Force is almost guaranteed to be the Iraqi Air Force, and U.S. Air Force personnel will undoubtedly remain at Balad Air Base in significant numbers, ?withdrawal? or no. 5.What did the Pentagon recently hand over to Iraq? a.A check for one trillion dollars to reconstruct a country which the U.S. invasion and occupation plunged into a ruinous civil war that cost millions of Iraqis their homes, their jobs, their economic security, their peace of mind, or their lives. b. An IOU for two trillion dollars to reconstruct a country which the U.S. invasion and occupation plunged into a ruinous civil war that cost millions of Iraqis their homes, their jobs, their economic security, their peace of mind, or their lives. c. Some hot air. Correct answer: c. We?ll bet you didn?t know that, in 2003, the U.S. military occupied not only the land of Iraq, but its air, too. Just recently, according to a Pentagon press-release-cum-news-story, ?the U.S. Air Force handed over the Kirkuk sector of airspace, 15,000 feet and above, to the ICAA [Iraq Civil Aviation Authority] at Baghdad International Airport.? In November, the U.S. plans to hand over even more hot air, this time in the south of the country -- but not all of it. Iraq will not control all of its air until some time in 2011. Of course, once they have their air back, the Iraqi Air Force will only need planes and trained pilots to make use of it. (See question 4.) 6.The 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, a ?combat-capable brigade-sized unit,? has been deployed three times (according to the U.S. Army) ?during Operation Iraqi Freedom -- serving successfully in tough areas including Fallujah, Tall Afar, Ramadi, and Baghdad.? Its lead elements were recently sent from Fort Hood, Texas, to where? a.Afghanistan as the final installment of President Obama?s surge of U.S. troops into that country. b. Camp Justice, the U.S. military base in Oman, as a warning to insurgents in neighboring Yemen. c. Camp Darby in Livorno, Italy, because the war there didn?t end all that long ago and, besides, Switzerland sits threateningly to the north. d. Juarez, Mexico, because Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently declared Mexico?s drug war an ?insurgency,? and insurgencies are now an area of U.S. military expertise. e. Iraq, the country that the ?last U.S. combat troops? left less than a month ago. Correct answer: e. Of course, the ?Brave Rifles,? as the unit is known, are not -- we repeat not -- combat troops. They?re just, says the Army, ?combat capable.? Yes, they?re trained for combat. But take our word for it, they?re NOT combat troops. Yes they?re well armed. But NOT for combat. And yes, they?re an ?Armored Cavalry? unit. But it?s NOT about combat, OK? They?re in Iraq strictly in an ?advise and assist? capacity. Did we mention that they aren?t a combat unit? 7.With the U.S. military occupation of Iraq due to end in 2011, the American mission there is officially being left to the State Department, representing the civilian side of U.S. foreign policy, which is planning to: a.Spend about $1.5 billion dollars to set up and run two embassy branch offices and two or more ?enduring presence posts? (they used to be called ?consulates?), including hiring the necessary armed private contractors. b. Employ 2,400 people in its (?largest in the world?) embassy, the size of the Vatican (but far better defended) in Baghdad?s Green Zone and at its other posts. c. More than double its force of private civilian contractors to 6,000-7,000, arm them with cast-off Pentagon heavy weaponry and Apache helicopters, and form them into ?quick reaction teams.? d. Spend another $800 million on a program to train the Iraqi police. e. Take on more than 1,200 specific tasks previously handled by the U.S. military. Correct answer: a, b, c, d, and e (and even they don?t cover the subject adequately). Michael Gordon of the New York Times supplied most of the numbers above. Who knows what those 1,200 previously military tasks may be, but, reports the Nation?s Jeremy Scahill, those five ?enduring presence posts? are to be set up on what are now U.S. military bases, assumedly so that the Pentagon?s costly base-building won?t go completely to waste. It all represents a unique arrangement, since the civilian State Department?s corps of mercenary warriors will then be used to ?operate radar to warn of enemy fire, search for roadside bombs, and fly surveillance drones,? among other jobs. Oh, and good news -- if you happen to be a private contractor at least -- that police-training program will be run by private contractors; and even better, just in case the private contractors don?t act on the up-and-up, there will be people specially assigned to provide oversight and they will be... private contractors, of course. How can the new diplomats from the remodeled five-sided State Department go wrong, advancing as they are encased in the latest mine-resistant vehicles known as MRAPS and ever prepared to give peace a chance? 8. When private military contractor Blackwater (now known as Xe Services) found itself in hot water after some of its guards slaughtered 17 Iraqi civilians in a Baghdad square in 2007, the company responded by: a.Admitting error, while begging forgiveness from, and rapidly paying generous compensation to, the families of the dead Iraqi civilians. b. Vowing to avoid all armed work in the future and to transform the company into a community-services and elderly care operation. c. Setting up at least 31 shell companies and subsidiaries through which it could still be awarded contracts by the State Department, the CIA, and the U.S. Army without embarrassment to anyone. Correct answer: c. So James Risen and Mark Mazzetti reported earlier this month in the New York Times. The company, which is ?facing a string of legal problems, including the indictment in April of five former Blackwater officials on weapons and obstruction charges, and civil suits stemming from the 2007 shootings in Iraq,? hasn?t suffered in pocket-book terms. Just this year, it received contracts for $120 million to provide the State Department with security in Afghanistan, and another $100 million to protect the CIA in Afghanistan and elsewhere. (The Agency has awarded Blackwater and its shell companies $600 million since 2001, according to Risen and Mazzetti.) 9.Recently, Iran unveiled a new armed drone, billed as a long-range unmanned aerial bomber and dubbed the ?Ambassador of Death? by the country?s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Afterwards, the Pentagon: a.Cut out drone strikes in Pakistan to send Iran a message that conducting regular attacks on a country with which you are not officially at war is impermissible. b. Announced plans to rethink the fast-and-loose rules of robotic assassination used in its Terminator wars for the better part of a decade so that Iran could not cite U.S. actions as precedent. c. Stepped up drone strikes in the Pakistani tribal borderlands, sometimes carrying out more than one a day. Correct answer: c. In discussing Washington?s desire to export drone technology to allies, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has termed Iranian drones a ?concern.? The U.S. has, however, not only continued to pave the way for Iran (and every other nation and non-state actor) to conduct drone attacks with utter impunity, but accelerated the process. For his part, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley recently echoed Gates, calling Iran?s dronesa ?concern to us and concern to Iran?s neighbors.? Of the new Iranian drone?s hyperbolic unofficial moniker, he said with a laugh, ?It?s a curious name for a system.? Perhaps he?s unaware that his own government has dubbed its two marquee armed drones -- with a straight face, mind you -- Predator and Reaper (as in ?Grim...?) and that those aircraft launch ?Hellfire? missiles. The official name of the Iranian drone is actually the least inflammatory of the three: ?Karrar? or ?striker.? 10.Five hundred million dollars is approximately the amount: a. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pledged in July to development projects for Pakistan to ?build broader support for the war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban.? b. Afghanistan?s troubled Kabul Bank had in cash just weeks ago before its panicked depositors bled it dry. c. The amount of money the U.S. military will spend on its musical bands this year. Correct answer: a, b, and c. According to the Washington Post?s Walter Pincus, the U.S. military may now spend $500 million or more annually on its musical bands -- the U.S. Army alone has more than 100 of them -- the same amount used to sway a critically impoverished country of 166 million people in what?s been portrayed as a multigenerational war of paramount importance. At least Kabul Bank now knows where to go for a loan, assuming that Afghans will accept trombones instead of cash. Blast-from-the-Past Bonus Question 11.Who said, ?I think for us to get American military personnel involved in a civil war inside Iraq would literally be a quagmire?? a.Bob Dylan, mumbled during a live performance in April 2002. b. Dick Cheney in 1991 when he was George H.W. Bush?s Secretary of Defense. c. George Steinbrenner in an interview with the New York Daily News after the Yankees won the 1998 World Series. Correct answer: b. If only Cheney had listened to himself when he became vice president. ?Several years after occupied Iraq had become the quagmire he once warned about,? writes historian John Dower in his striking new book Cultures of War: Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima, 9-11, Iraq, ?Cheney was asked how to reconcile what he argued in 1991 and disregarded later. ?Well, I stand by what I said in ?91,? he replied. ?But look what?s happened since then -- we had 9/11.?? Sigh. And believe it or not, folks, that?s it for the wild and wacky world of American war this month. If you answered at least 10 of theAmerican Way of War Quiz questions correctly, consider yourself a four-star general. If you answered 5 to 9 correctly, you qualify as a gun totin? mercenary (with all the usual Lord of the Flies perks). If you did worse, you?re a buck private in a U.S. Army woodwind ensemble that?s just been dispatched to Camp Dwyer in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project, runs the Nation Institute?s TomDispatch.com, where this article first appeared. His latest book, The American Way of War: How Bush?s Wars Became Obama?s(Haymarket Books), has just been published. You can catch him discussing war American-style and his book in a Timothy MacBain TomCast audio interview by clicking here or, to download it to your iPod, here. Nick Turse is the associate editor of TomDispatch.com. An award-winning journalist, his work has appeared in the Los Angeles Times, the Nation, and regularly at TomDispatch. His latest book, The Case for Withdrawal from Afghanistan (Verso Books), has just been published. He discusses why withdrawal hasn?t been on the American agenda in Timothy MacBain?s latest TomCast audio interview, which can be accessed by clicking here or downloaded to your iPod here. Turse is currently a fellow at Harvard University?s Radcliffe Institute. You can follow him on Twitter @NickTurse, on Tumblr, and on Facebook. His website is NickTurse.com. Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 863-9977 www.Freedomarchives.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From news at freedomarchives.org Fri Sep 17 11:31:18 2010 From: news at freedomarchives.org (Anti-Imperialist News) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:31:18 -0700 Subject: [News] 28 Years Later: Sabra and Shatila Massacre Message-ID: Reham Alhelsi ? 28 Years Later: Sabra and Shatila Massacre By Reham Alhelsi ? Sep 16th, 2010 at 20:48 http://palestinethinktank.com/2010/09/16/reham-alhelsi-28-years-later-sabra-and-shatila-massacre/ 28 years ago, one September day, after playing with my siblings and friends in our land, we returned home with joy in our hearts. We were very happy and rushed to tell my parents of our plan to go on a ?picnic? the following day with our friends. My father looked at us and said calmly: no, there will be no picnic tomorrow. My parents were sitting in front of the TV, both unusually quiet, my father?s eyes looked troubled, my mother had tears in her eyes. The house was silent, dead silent, except for the screams coming from the TV. I looked at the TV and saw the same images over and over: dead bodies . dead bodies . dead bodies . 28 years ago, I saw images of butchered Palestinians, piled up like sacks one over the other. I saw images of murdered men, women, children and elderly filling the streets. I saw women crying and shouting and cursing. I saw Sabra and Shatila. 28 years later, I remember Sabra and Shatila, look at the images of the martyred victims. I memorize the 3500 names of those tortured to death, of those butchered. I read out loud the testimonies of those who survived the atrocities. I think of their pain, their suffering and of their fear. I think: 62 years of murder, 62 years of terror, 62 years of Zionism occupying Palestine and threatening humanity. 28 years ago, I understood for the first time what it means to mourn, what it feels like to lose someone, how much it hurts to see someone lying in their blood, hear the stories of the their last minutes, listen to the screams of those who survived. We sat in our living room in occupied Palestine and saw the images of all those men, women and children, lying dead in the streets. It was like waking up from a dream, and realizing that for you, as a Palestinian, there was no place for picnics, no place for happiness as long as other Palestinians were being murdered, that there is no place for happiness as long as Palestine is still occupied. These Palestinians did not live in Palestine, they were far away from us, but they were part of us. They were far away, in places called Sabra and Shatila. It was the first time that I hear of these places and since then these two names never left me. They were far away from their homeland, far away from Palestine, and we in Palestine, mourned them, cried for them and felt the pain of those who survived. They were the brothers far away from home, the sisters we never met, the cousins we heard of, the family that is an extension of every family in Palestine. They were the branches that were forcibly cut off of the olive tree. They were the roots that were snatched away from our mother Palestine. 28 years later, I remember Sabra and Shatila. I remember that Palestinians are targeted everywhere. I think of those among us steadfast in our land refusing to leave despite the daily Zionist terror, and think of those in the Diaspora dreaming and waiting for the return. We are the parts that make Palestine full; we are one body and when one part of Palestine bleeds, all of Palestine bleeds. I remember every massacre and every crime committed against the Palestinians. And despite the hopes, the wishes and aims of the Zionists, every massacre, every drop of Palestinian blood, every cry of a Palestinian child makes us stronger, more steadfast, more resolute to fight the occupation and the oppression. With every massacre and with every crime we grew closer and stood as one; one body aching for freedom. With every massacre and with every crime we cry for every victim of oppression, we go to the streets for every martyr and every wounded and every prisoner, we protest every injustice and demand our legitimate rights. It is our unity that makes us strong, a blood bond that not the Zionist entity, not the US, not even the treacherous Palestinians could break. 28 years ago, I realized that Palestinian refugees, wherever they might be, whether in Dheisheh, Balatah, Shu?fat or Khan Younis, whether in Shnellar, Ein Il-Hilweh or Yarmouk, are a threat to the Zionist entity because they expose its lie of a ?land without a people for a people without a land?. I understood that the Right of Return is a threat to the Zionist entity that is a usurper entity based on racism, ethnic cleansing and terror. I realized that Jrash, Deir Aban and Zakariya are names the Zionist entity wants deleted from the memory of humanity as it deleted them from the map of the world. 28 years later, I remember Sabra and Shatila and think of Palestinian babies born every day. These babies are a threat to the Zionist entity because with every Palestinian baby the Zionist myth of ?there is no such thing as Palestinians? crumbles and falls, with every Palestinian baby the Zionist dream of ethnically cleansing Palestine is destroyed, with every Palestinian baby the road to Haifa, Yafa and Al-Jalil becomes shorter and with every Palestinian baby Palestine grows stronger. 28 years later, I remember Sabra and Shatila and I think of all the collaborators and the sell-outs who want to ?negotiate? our legitimate rights, who want to exchange the Right of Return for more dollars and euros to fill their over-sized Swiss bank accounts and who want to sell out Palestine for more ?power? in their ?mini-bantustan? aka Al-Muqata?a Ash-Sharifa. To them we say: the Right of Return is inalienable and there is no peace without justice, and there is no justice without the return of all Palestinian refugees. 28 years ago, I understood that the Arab betrayal that caused our Nakba and allowed a Zionist usurper entity to be established in the heart of the Arab world and on the dead bodies of Palestinians is still a strong ally of Zionism and a partner in dictatorship, racism and denying equal rights. I understood that the Arab betrayal that allowed the Sabra and Shatila massacre to happen is still joining forces with the usurpers to devour what is left of Palestine, to ethnically cleanse and remove off the face of the earth anything with the name ?Palestinian?. 28 years later, I remember Sabra and Shatila, and think of the Arab regimes who still betray Palestine through their alliance with the Zionist entity. They continue to betray Palestine every time they shake the hands of Zionist war criminals, they betray Palestine every time they allow Zionists to enter their lands, they betray Palestine every time they encourage normalization with the Zionist entity, they betray Palestine every time they refuse to boycott Zionism and its products. And the Arab peoples still betray Palestine through their silence which makes them indirect accomplices. The millions over millions of Arab people betray Palestine every time their remain in their homes while millions all over the world go out to the streets to protest Zionist terror, they betray Palestine every time they ?condemn? Zionist terror on facebook and twitter while others all over the world start solidarity groups, and initiate boycott movements, they betray Palestine every time they meet with Zionists with lame excuses such as to ?discuss peace? and ?hear the other side? thus siding with the oppressor and equating the occupier with the occupied. The millions over millions of Arabs betray Palestine and themselves and their children every time they say ?our leaders won?t allow us? while millions and millions of peoples throughout the history took their destiny in their own hands and liberated themselves from tyranny and dictatorship. 28 years ago, I saw the blood flowing in the streets of Sabra and Shatila mix with the blood of Deir Yasin, with the blood of Kufr Qasim, with the blood of Qibya, Ish-Sheikh, Ad-Dayameh, Sharafat, As-Sammou?, and countless many more. I saw men and women scattered on the ground. I saw children, like me, with no limbs and no heads. I saw horrors that were the ?trademark? of Zionism. And I saw the fear, I saw the anger and I saw the resolution. I saw Palestine bleeding and I cried. 28 years later, I remember Sabra and Shatila, and think of the Palestinian blood shed by the Zionists in Oyoun Qarra, Al-Aqsa, in Al-Ibrahimi, in Jenin, in Jabalia, in Gaza. Palestine is still bleeding, cries, awaits us to stand up again as one against the occupiers and their accomplices. Palestine asks us to stay loyal to the blood of Sabra and Shatila and all the innocent victims, never to forget, and to lead the way to Safsaf, Majd Il-Krum, Amka and Yajour. 28 years I saw Palestinians become Lebanese and Lebanese become Palestinians. I saw both united against one enemy; Zionism which is the enemy of all humanity. I saw Palestinians and Lebanese neighbours living near each other, living together and living for each other. I saw Palestinians and Lebanese neighbours as it always was: Palestine hugging Lebanon and Lebanon hugging Palestine until Zionism torn them apart. I saw Palestinians and Lebanese blood mingle and become one: the blood of the innocent victims of Zionism. 28 years later, I remember Sabra and Shatila, and think of what was and what is. I think of the Palestinian refugees who lost their homes and their lands, who were forced out of Palestine and who were butchered wherever they went. I think of Palestinian refugees who have only one home to which they want to return, who have only one identity to define them: the Palestinians of Palestine. But until the day of the return; don?t they deserve to be treated like humans? 28 years ago, I saw the victims of Sabra and Shatila and understood that murderers who kill civilians know no ?peace?; that killers who butcher children don?t want ?peace? and that only resistance is the way to Haifa, Yafa and Akka, that only through resistance will we liberate Palestine, only through resistance will Palestine be one again; from the river to the sea. 28 years later and after some 20 years of useless ?negotiations? between those who don?t represent us and those who butcher us, I remember Sabra and Shatila and every single massacre committed by the Zionists and their accomplices. I remember every single child, woman and man killed for the sake of Zionism. I remember every village, every town and every refugee camp that was ethnically cleansed, destroyed, bulldozed or bombed in the name of Zionism. I remember those who refused to sell their conscience, their honour and their land; I remember those who chose Palestine. And I remember those who shook the hands of the killers of our people, I remember those who ?acknowledged? our killers, signed ?treaties? with them and called them ?our partners in peace?; I remember those who sold Palestine. And I will never forget. 28 years ago, I, a child, sat in my bed in the middle of one September night in 1982, the images of the dead children filling my little head, the cries of the survivors echoing in my ears, tears swimming in my eyes, and swore to remain loyal to the innocent souls of Sabra and Shatila, to remain loyal to Palestine. I swore never to forget, never to forgive. 28 years later, I remember Sabra and Shatila, and I haven't forgotten, nor have I forgiven. The war criminals still walk freely, they are welcomed in every Arab country, they are hugged and kissed by those who claim they represent us. 28 years later, I remember Sabra and Shatila and I will never forget those who, while Palestinians were being butchered by Zionists, went to have dinner with the war criminal Sharon in his ranch built on usurped Palestinian land. And 28 years ago, I cried for the victims of Sabra and Shatila and dreamt of freedom, of liberation and of the return of all refugees to their homes so they can bury their dead and dry their tears and plant olive trees where Zionism tried to kill the land. 28 years later, we commemorate Sabra and Shatila; commemorate the souls of the innocent civilians butchered in a most horrific manner by the Zionist terrorists and their accomplices and watch as another set of accomplices meet with the same Zionist usurpers to sell our legitimate rights and our land. 28 years later, the tears of Sabra and Shatila haven't dried yet. The blood of Sabra and Shatila still flows in every alley and every street of every Arab country that welcomes a Zionist war criminal. The screams of Sabra and Shatila still resound in every alley and every street of every Arab country that welcomed a Zionist war criminal. 28 years later, and 10227 days after Sabra and Shatila Palestine is still occupied by the Zionists and their accomplices. Palestinian blood is still being spilled for the sake of Zionism. Palestine is still usurped, besieged and faces daily ethnic cleansing and terror. 28 year later, Sabra and Shatila appeals to us, adjures us never to forget! 28 years later; our people are still steadfast in Palestine, the refugees still cling to the Right of Return and Resistance is still the only way for a free Palestine from the River to the Sea. ? http://avoicefrompalestine.wordpress.com Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 863-9977 www.Freedomarchives.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From news at freedomarchives.org Fri Sep 17 11:48:33 2010 From: news at freedomarchives.org (Anti-Imperialist News) Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:48:33 -0700 Subject: [News] Cuba - Muscular Diplomacy or Law Breaking? Message-ID: http://www.counterpunch.org/ September 17 - 19, 2010 Muscular Diplomacy or Law Breaking? The Confessions of Roger Noriega By SAUL LANDAU and NELSON P. VALD?S In May, Roger Noriega, former Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs (2003-2005), acknowledged he conspired with James Cason, chief of the United States Interest Section in Cuba (2002-2005), to violate a declared U.S. government policy of promoting in Cuba ? a peaceful transition to a democratic system based on respect for rule of law, individual human rights and open economic and communication systems.? Noriega and Cason sought to promote chaos in the island. Noriega did not refer to the chaos plan as coming from a secret decision of President Bush. Rather, Noriega and his cabal undertook their own initiative to foster instability. The effort led to the imprisonment of 75 Cuban citizens who followed the chaos-promotion instructions. On May 20th, Noriega boasted on WQBA (Miami Univision station) about plotting with Cason to force the Cuban government to break its limited diplomatic relations with the United States. (Cason is running for mayor of Coral Gables, Florida). In September 2002, Cason became Interest Section head in Havana. The Mexican magazine Proceso described his behavior as ?contrary to diplomatic norms. Indeed, ?just one month after presenting his credentials to the Cuban Foreign Ministry, Cason began receiving and visiting internal opponents, illegal but tolerated, of the Castro government.? Cason traveled throughout the island and met with dissidents, asking them to unify around a program ? which he provided. ?He also promised them with moral and material aid.? (La guerra en Irak hace maniobrar a la Habana,? April, 4, 2003) Cason also broke diplomatic precedent by attending ?a political event organized by dissidents seeking the end of President Fidel Castro's rule.? (AFP February 24, 2003) A few days later, at a press conference, Cason declared ?he had no fear? of the Cuban government. On March 6th, 2003, Fidel Castro called Cason ?a thug with diplomatic immunity,? but Cuba could live without the Interest Sections ? if that was the U.S. government?s goal. Cason, Castro conjectured, ?might be seeking his expulsion or the closing of the Interest Section, which would block the congressional trend to lift trade and travel restrictions with the island.? Former Interest Section chief Wayne Smith (1978-1982) described Cason?s behavior as ?the bull-in-the-china-shop tactics.? Smith had ?no doubts that the Bush Administration wants to close the Interest Section because they?re neither interested in travel, food and medicine sales or more normal exchanges." He hoped Havana would not fall for the trap. (Testimony, Committee on Senate Finance September 4, 2003) Cuba neither expelled Cason nor closed the U.S. Interests Section. Instead, on March 18, 2003, Cuban police arrested Cason?s key Cuban collaborators. Applying a hitherto unused 1999 law, Cuban police arrested 75 ?dissidents.? AP?s Anita Snow noted, ?The crackdown marked an end to the comparative lenience Cuban officials showed in recent years as independent journalists filed dispatches to Miami without government intervention, dissidents held news conferences and activists collected thousands of signatures for a petition calling for democratic reforms.? (March, 22, 2003; Reuters April 6, 2003) Cuba?s Foreign Minister described the arrest of the 75 as unavoidable. Cason had to face the bitter fact: his ground troops, to whom he had pledged U.S. support, went to prison. Without the ?dissidents? free to spark fires of discontent, Noriega?s plan to foment chaos fell flat. In 2010, Cuba released most of the 75. But did high State Department officials conspire with underlings in the Interest Section to foster chaos in Cuba, a far cry from ?the promotion of a peaceful transition? written into the Interest Section charter? Noriega told Roberto Rodriguez, radio host of ?What Others Do not Say? that he was ?one of the architects? of a plan to destabilize Cuba in 2003. Noriega blamed the failure of his plan to force regime change in Cuba on Venezuela?s supplying dollars to Havana, ?a lifesaver for Cuba. I think it was a great shame that this happened.? Noriega described how ?we opted for change even if it meant chaos. The Cubans had had too much stability over decades and it?s true that the U.S. bureaucracy and military preferred stability. But members of my team said stability is the enemy and chaos is the friend if you want to profoundly change a regime... Obviously, chaos was necessary in order to change reality.? Did Bush really want a change in the Cuban government, Rodriguez wondered, or did he fear change might provoke a massive exodus? ?The only option not on the table against Cuba was a military invasion,? Noriega said. He told the radio audience how ?we told our friend James Cason that if only he could provoke the Cuban regime to expel him from the country we could respond by closing the Cuban Interest Section in Washington.? Noriega taunted ?Cuban intelligence because we spoke openly on the phone and didn?t hide our intentions and that is what had to be acknowledged here in the U.S. administration.? But Noriega?s personal desires did not get formally acknowledged because they countered the words of the Interest Section Charter: peaceful not hostile behavior. Do government officials conspiring to change policy without a constitutional basis constitute a violation of U.S. law? Can the victims of Noriega?s bungling -- the 75 and their families -- file lawsuits for damages? Should Roger and James seek legal counsel? Saul Landau is an Institute for Policy Studies fellow. Counterpunch published his BUSH AND BOTOX WORLD. Nelson Valdes is Professor Emeritus, University of New Mexico. Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 863-9977 www.Freedomarchives.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From news at freedomarchives.org Sun Sep 19 10:51:16 2010 From: news at freedomarchives.org (Anti-Imperialist News) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 07:51:16 -0700 Subject: [News] =?iso-8859-1?q?The_FBI=92s_War_On_Democracy_-_the_new_film?= =?iso-8859-1?q?__COINTELPRO_101?= Message-ID: http://angola3news.blogspot.com/2010/09/fbis-war-on-democracy-claude-marks.html The FBI's War On Democracy --Claude Marks discusses the new film COINTELPRO 101 By Angola 3 News Claude Marks, Director of The Freedom Archives, talks to Angola 3 News about the highly anticipated new documentary film, entitled COINTELPRO 101, which is premiering on October 10, at the Mission Cultural Center of Latino Arts in San Francisco. According to its website, the Freedom Archives contains over 8000 hours of audio and video tapes. These recordings date from the late-60s to the mid-90s and chronicle the progressive history of the Bay Area, the United States, and international solidarity movements. The collection includes weekly news/ poetry/ music programs broadcast on several educational radio stations; in-depth interviews and reports on social and cultural issues; diverse activist voices; original and recorded music, poetry, original sound collages; and an extensive La Raza collection. Freedom Archives has released other audio and video documentaries, including the recent video about the San Francisco Eight, entitled "Legacy of Torture." Legacy of Torture can be viewed online, as well as the previous films Voices of Three Political Prisoners (featuring Nuh Washington, Jalil Muntaqim and David Gilbert), Charisse Shumate: Fighting for Our Lives, and Self Respect, Self Defense & Self Determination (featuring Mabel Williams and Kathleen Cleaver, introduced by Angela Davis). Angola 3 News: What can you tell us about your upcoming film COINTELPRO 101? Claude Marks: We've been aware of the need to talk more about COINTELPRO since we made The Legacy of Torture, the video about the government torture of the Panthers in New Orleans in 1973 which later became the unjust basis for the San Francisco 8 Case. In travelling with that film and organizing for the dropping of charges, we referred to COINTELPRO but often were talking to younger people in particular, who had not heard the term and had no historical frame of reference for that period of intense repression. So we undertook to make this new film, knowing that no government agent or agency has ever been held accountable for the assassinations of leaders, the destruction of organizations, the imprisonment and political targeting of so many people - people who still remain prisoners of the wars against movements for liberation and self-determination within the US borders. COINTELPRO 101 is not the first or only film on the subject, although there have not been many, but we hope it can help reinvigorate some organizing work, and reopen some thinking about the violence directed against progressive movements, this hidden history, and nature of the state and its agencies of repression. A3N: How was the film showing and related workshop at the US Social Forum received by the audience? CM: This was a good opportunity to infuse the very broad conversations at the Social Forum with a self-conscious discussion about the nature and continuity of government repression. From the European invasion & Middle Passage forward, we have always seen genocide. Prisons, COINTELPRO, Abu Ghraib - all represent the continuity of what any movements to change power relations are and will be up against. A3N: Your website states that the film's intended audiences are the generations that did not experience the social justice movements of the sixties and seventies. Given that COINTELPRO officially ended in the early 1970s, why is this story so important for the younger generation to know about? CM: Well, the mission of the Freedom Archives is to help educate people, and especially the rising new generations, as to the true nature of recent radical history. The high point of struggle represented by the loosely used term 'the sixties' and the violent repression against it, contains essential lessons for every young person seeking a more just society. More generally, people should not be misled by the myth of democracy, the idea that the system can be made to work for us or that those in power will somehow reach a moral epiphany and give up anything of consequence without a fight. We see this myth exposed today in many ways - mass imprisonment, the tearing up of families and communities - driven by racism - the criminalization of dissent so any act of resistance becomes by their definition an act of "terrorism." This is a continuum that is unleashed upon the world's peoples as well as internally. Black, Brown, and Indigenous people are targeted. Muslims and South Asians are targeted. Women and queer folks are targeted. Prisoners are subjected to the worst inhumanities, and if they are ever released, what do they have they to look forward to? The U.S. has by far the largest incarceration rate in the world - as they build more prisons, the schools deteriorate and the public education system lies in racist tatters. A3N: How do you think the US government's repression of the Left today differs from the COINTELPRO era? CM: In the 1970s, the public and some officials, faced with the exposure of the illegal acts of government and police agencies against dissent, feigned concerns about the loss of civil liberties, held hearings, and alleged that reforms would take place. But today, the acts of the FBI, police, and other agencies, once illegal, are now legitimate, legal - via the Patriot Act and other unconstitutional measures, all in the name of homeland security and defending the nation against "terrorism." The playing field has changed. The government now openly conducts assassinations anywhere in the world, can declare people to be "enemy combatants" and imprison them indefinitely without charges; drone warfare permits mass civilian murders by so-called military experts thousands of miles away without risking US military casualties - it's a 'game' except to the thousands of victims. Today the government claims the right to breach international human rights laws and conventions with no accountability. And the corporate media is so integrated into this strategy, that there is little room for 'legitimate' opposition to get a hearing. So it becomes incumbent upon us to organize and message independently and with few resources. COINTELPRO 101 is made with mainly love and fumes, but we hope that it will be a useful tool to engage in dialogue and to help organize movements that challenge the mythology that dissent is a guaranteed right, that seek the release of political prisoners, that counter the miseducation of our youth with an understanding of the past so they can better shape the future. A3N: Knowing what we do about this repression in the past and present, how can activists today best defend ourselves? How should our organizing strategies be modified? CM: We must organize to show our outrage with more consistency and despite risks. There is an urgency to demand more of one another as well. Challenging the state is serious and will not succeed as a result of stroking egos or the pronouncements of self-declared leaders. It is hard work and requires a deep commitment and a passion for serving the people and rebuilding our communities. Our capacity must grow in realistic ways as there are no shortcuts, and the path includes defeats and sacrifice. This is one of the things that our political prisoners and the many martyrs can teach us. A3N: For our readers not close enough to San Francisco for the October 10 premiere, how will folks be able to watch the new film? CM: The film will begin to show in communities and on campuses this fall and winter. People can reach us to make arrangements. At some point we will also manufacture DVDs. We hope to have it available with subtitles in other languages as well. Also check the website as we have resources about COINTELPRO posted and will also add a teaching curriculum to accompany the film. A3N: How can folks best support your efforts? CM: We are very much a grassroots organization. We have no corporate or government funding. We are one voice among many, but we encourage people to support the work of independent media, including ourselves. We welcome your questions and comments and greatly appreciate your support. Also please use the audio and video documentaries that we've produced as educational materials and organizing tools. The actual Freedom Archives is searchable on line and is intended to preserve radical history and culture. So check us out! A3N: Any closing thoughts? CM: Years ago, as the movements grew and we worked in various political and media organizations, we were fond of quoting part of an 1857 speech by Frederick Douglass, often using Ossie Davis's dramatic rendition of his famous words. They sum up a lesson that is central to what I am saying, and is at the heart of COINTELPRO 101. Many of your readers are probably familiar with it, but its essence bears repeating: "The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims, have been born of earnest struggle. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation - want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." --Angola 3 News is a new project of the International Coalition to Free the Angola 3. Our website is www.angola3news.com where we provide the latest news about the Angola 3. We are also creating our own media projects, which spotlight the issues central to the story of the Angola 3, like racism, repression, prisons, human rights, solitary confinement as torture, and more. Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 863-9977 www.Freedomarchives.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From news at freedomarchives.org Mon Sep 20 10:41:18 2010 From: news at freedomarchives.org (Anti-Imperialist News) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 07:41:18 -0700 Subject: [News] Blackwater's Black Ops Message-ID: Published on The Nation (http://www.thenation.com) ---------- Blackwater's Black Ops Jeremy Scahill | September 15, 2010 Over the past several years, entities closely linked to the private security firm Blackwater have provided intelligence, training and security services to US and foreign governments as well as several multinational corporations, including Monsanto, Chevron, the Walt Disney Company, Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines and banking giants Deutsche Bank and Barclays, according to documents obtained by The Nation. Blackwater's work for corporations and government agencies was contracted using two companies owned by Blackwater's owner and founder, Erik Prince: Total Intelligence Solutions and the Terrorism Research Center (TRC). Prince is listed as the chairman of both companies in internal company documents, which show how the web of companies functions as a highly coordinated operation. Officials from Total Intelligence, TRC and Blackwater (which now calls itself Xe Services) did not respond to numerous requests for comment for this article. One of the most incendiary details in the documents is that Blackwater, through Total Intelligence, sought to become the "intel arm" of Monsanto, offering to provide operatives to infiltrate activist groups organizing against the multinational biotech firm. Governmental recipients of intelligence services and counterterrorism training from Prince's companies include the Kingdom of Jordan, the Canadian military and the Netherlands police, as well as several US military bases, including Fort Bragg, home of the elite Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), and Fort Huachuca, where military interrogators are trained, according to the documents. In addition, Blackwater worked through the companies for the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and the US European Command. On September 3 the New York Times reported that Blackwater had "created a web of more than 30 shell companies or subsidiaries in part to obtain millions of dollars in American government contracts after the security company came under intense criticism for reckless conduct in Iraq." The documents obtained by The Nation reveal previously unreported details of several such companies and open a rare window into the sensitive intelligence and security operations Blackwater performs for a range of powerful corporations and government agencies. The new evidence also sheds light on the key roles of several former top CIA officials who went on to work for Blackwater. The coordinator of Blackwater's covert CIA business, former CIA paramilitary officer Enrique "Ric" Prado, set up a global network of foreign operatives, offering their "deniability" as a "big plus" for potential Blackwater customers, according to company documents. The CIA has long used proxy forces to carry out extralegal actions or to shield US government involvement in unsavory operations from scrutiny. In some cases, these "deniable" foreign forces don't even know who they are working for. Prado and Prince built up a network of such foreigners while Blackwater was at the center of the CIA's assassination program, beginning in 2004. They trained special missions units at one of Prince's properties in Virginia with the intent of hunting terrorism suspects globally, often working with foreign operatives. A former senior CIA official said the benefit of using Blackwater's foreign operatives in CIA operations was that "you wouldn't want to have American fingerprints on it." While the network was originally established for use in CIA operations, documents show that Prado viewed it as potentially valuable to other government agencies. In an e-mail in October 2007 with the subject line "Possible Opportunity in DEA?Read and Delete," Prado wrote to a Total Intelligence executive with a pitch for the Drug Enforcement Administration. That executive was an eighteen-year DEA veteran with extensive government connections who had recently joined the firm. Prado explained that Blackwater had developed "a rapidly growing, worldwide network of folks that can do everything from surveillance to ground truth to disruption operations." He added, "These are all foreign nationals (except for a few cases where US persons are the conduit but no longer 'play' on the street), so deniability is built in and should be a big plus." The executive wrote back and suggested there "may be an interest" in those services. The executive suggested that "one of the best places to start may be the Special Operations Division, (SOD) which is located in Chantilly, VA," telling Prado the name of the special agent in charge. The SOD is a secretive joint command within the Justice Department, run by the DEA. It serves as the command-and-control center for some of the most sensitive counternarcotics and law enforcement operations conducted by federal forces. The executive also told Prado that US attach?s in Mexico; Bogot?, Colombia; and Bangkok, Thailand, would potentially be interested in Prado's network. Whether this network was activated, and for what customers, cannot be confirmed. A former Blackwater employee who worked on the company's CIA program declined to comment on Prado's work for the company, citing its classified status. In November 2007 officials from Prince's companies developed a pricing structure for security and intelligence services for private companies and wealthy individuals. One official wrote that Prado had the capacity to "develop infrastructures" and "conduct ground-truth and security activities." According to the pricing chart, potential customers could hire Prado and other Blackwater officials to operate in the United States and globally: in Latin America, North Africa, francophone countries, the Middle East, Europe, China, Russia, Japan, and Central and Southeast Asia. A four-man team headed by Prado for countersurveillance in the United States cost $33,600 weekly, while "safehouses" could be established for $250,000, plus operational costs. Identical services were offered globally. For $5,000 a day, clients could hire Prado or former senior CIA officials Cofer Black and Robert Richer for "representation" to national "decision-makers." Before joining Blackwater, Black, a twenty-eight-year CIA veteran, ran the agency's counterterrorism center, while Richer was the agency's deputy director of operations. (Neither Black nor Richer currently works for the company.) As Blackwater became embroiled in controversy following the Nisour Square massacre, Prado set up his own company, Constellation Consulting Group (CCG), apparently taking some of Blackwater's covert CIA work with him, though he maintained close ties to his former employer. In an e-mail to a Total Intelligence executive in February 2008, Prado wrote that he "recently had major success in developing capabilities in Mali [Africa] that are of extreme interest to our major sponsor and which will soon launch a substantial effort via my small shop." He requested Total Intelligence's help in analyzing the "North Mali/Niger terrorist problem." In October 2009 Blackwater executives faced a crisis when they could not account for their government-issued Secure Telephone Unit, which is used by the CIA, the National Security Agency and other military and intelligence services for secure communications. A flurry of e-mails were sent around as personnel from various Blackwater entities tried to locate the device. One former Blackwater official wrote that because he had left the company it was "not really my problem," while another declared, "I have no 'dog in this fight.'" Eventually, Prado stepped in, e-mailing the Blackwater officials to "pass my number" to the "OGA POC," meaning the Other Government Agency (parlance for CIA) Point of Contact. What relationship Prado's CCG has with the CIA is not known. An early version of his company's website boasted that "CCG professionals have already conducted operations on five continents, and have proven their ability to meet the most demanding client needs" and that the company has the "ability to manage highly-classified contracts." CCG, the site said, "is uniquely positioned to deliver services that no other company can, and can deliver results in the most remote areas with little or no outside support." Among the services advertised were "Intelligence and Counter-Intelligence (human and electronic), Unconventional Military Operations, Counterdrug Operations, Aviation Services, Competitive Intelligence, Denied Area Access...and Paramilitary Training." The Nation has previously reported on Blackwater's work for the CIA and JSOC in Pakistan. New documents reveal a history of activity relating to Pakistan by Blackwater. Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto worked with the company when she returned to Pakistan to campaign for the 2008 elections, according to the documents. In October 2007, when media reports emerged that Bhutto had hired "American security," senior Blackwater official Robert Richer wrote to company executives, "We need to watch this carefully from a number of angles. If our name surfaces, the Pakistani press reaction will be very important. How that plays through the Muslim world will also need tracking." Richer wrote that "we should be prepared to [sic] a communique from an affiliate of Al-Qaida if our name surfaces (BW). That will impact the security profile." Clearly a word is missing in the e-mail or there is a typo that leaves unclear what Richer meant when he mentioned the Al Qaeda communiqu?. Bhutto was assassinated two months later. Blackwater officials subsequently scheduled a meeting with her family representatives in Washington, in January 2008. Through Total Intelligence and the Terrorism Research Center, Blackwater also did business with a range of multinational corporations. According to internal Total Intelligence communications, biotech giant Monsanto?the world's largest supplier of genetically modified seeds?hired the firm in 2008?09. The relationship between the two companies appears to have been solidified in January 2008 when Total Intelligence chair Cofer Black traveled to Zurich to meet with Kevin Wilson, Monsanto's security manager for global issues. After the meeting in Zurich, Black sent an e-mail to other Blackwater executives, including to Prince and Prado at their Blackwater e-mail addresses. Black wrote that Wilson "understands that we can span collection from internet, to reach out, to boots on the ground on legit basis protecting the Monsanto [brand] name.... Ahead of the curve info and insight/heads up is what he is looking for." Black added that Total Intelligence "would develop into acting as intel arm of Monsanto." Black also noted that Monsanto was concerned about animal rights activists and that they discussed how Blackwater "could have our person(s) actually join [activist] group(s) legally." Black wrote that initial payments to Total Intelligence would be paid out of Monsanto's "generous protection budget" but would eventually become a line item in the company's annual budget. He estimated the potential payments to Total Intelligence at between $100,000 and $500,000. According to documents, Monsanto paid Total Intelligence $127,000 in 2008 and $105,000 in 2009. Reached by telephone and asked about the meeting with Black in Zurich, Monsanto's Wilson initially said, "I'm not going to discuss it with you." In a subsequent e-mail to The Nation, Wilson confirmed he met Black in Zurich and that Monsanto hired Total Intelligence in 2008 and worked with the company until early 2010. He denied that he and Black discussed infiltrating animal rights groups, stating "there was no such discussion." He claimed that Total Intelligence only provided Monsanto "with reports about the activities of groups or individuals that could pose a risk to company personnel or operations around the world which were developed by monitoring local media reports and other publicly available information. The subject matter ranged from information regarding terrorist incidents in Asia or kidnappings in Central America to scanning the content of activist blogs and websites." Wilson asserted that Black told him Total Intelligence was "a completely separate entity from Blackwater." Monsanto was hardly the only powerful corporation to enlist the services of Blackwater's constellation of companies. The Walt Disney Company hired Total Intelligence and TRC to do a "threat assessment" for potential film shoot locations in Morocco, with former CIA officials Black and Richer reaching out to their former Moroccan intel counterparts for information. The job provided a "good chance to impress Disney," one company executive wrote. How impressed Disney was is not clear; in 2009 the company paid Total Intelligence just $24,000. Total Intelligence and TRC also provided intelligence assessments on China to Deutsche Bank. "The Chinese technical counterintelligence threat is one of the highest in the world," a TRC analyst wrote, adding, "Many four and five star hotel rooms and restaurants are live-monitored with both audio and video" by Chinese intelligence. He also said that computers, PDAs and other electronic devices left unattended in hotel rooms could be cloned. Cellphones using the Chinese networks, the analyst wrote, could have their microphones remotely activated, meaning they could operate as permanent listening devices. He concluded that Deutsche Bank reps should "bring no electronic equipment into China." Warning of the use of female Chinese agents, the analyst wrote, "If you don't have women coming onto you all the time at home, then you should be suspicious if they start coming onto you when you arrive in China." For these and other services, the bank paid Total Intelligence $70,000 in 2009. TRC also did background checks on Libyan and Saudi businessmen for British banking giant Barclays. In February 2008 a TRC executive e-mailed Prado and Richer revealing that Barclays asked TRC and Total Intelligence for background research on the top executives from the Saudi Binladin Group (SBG) and their potential "associations/connections with the Royal family and connections with Osama bin Ladin." In his report, Richer wrote that SBG's chair, Bakr Mohammed bin Laden, "is well and favorably known to both arab and western intelligence service[s]" for cooperating in the hunt for Osama bin Laden. Another SBG executive, Sheikh Saleh bin Laden, is described by Richer as "a very savvy businessman" who is "committed to operating with full transparency to Saudi's security services" and is considered "the most vehement within the extended BL family in terms of criticizing UBL's actions and beliefs." In August Blackwater and the State Department reached a $42 million settlement for hundreds of violations of US export control regulations. Among the violations cited was the unauthorized export of technical data to the Canadian military. Meanwhile, Blackwater's dealings with Jordanian officials are the subject of a federal criminal prosecution of five former top Blackwater executives. The Jordanian government paid Total Intelligence more than $1.6 million in 2009. Some of the training Blackwater provided to Canadian military forces was in Blackwater/TRC's "Mirror Image" course, where trainees live as a mock Al Qaeda cell in an effort to understand the mindset and culture of insurgents. Company literature describes it as "a classroom and field training program designed to simulate terrorist recruitment, training, techniques and operational tactics." Documents show that in March 2009 Blackwater/TRC spent $6,500 purchasing local tribal clothing in Afghanistan as well as assorted "propaganda materials?posters, Pakistan Urdu maps, etc." for Mirror Image, and another $9,500 on similar materials this past January in Pakistan and Afghanistan. According to internal documents, in 2009 alone the Canadian military paid Blackwater more than $1.6 million through TRC. A Canadian military official praised the program in a letter to the center, saying it provided "unique and valid cultural awareness and mission specific deployment training for our soldiers in Afghanistan," adding that it was "a very effective and operationally current training program that is beneficial to our mission." This past summer Erik Prince put Blackwater up for sale and moved to Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. But he doesn't seem to be leaving the shadowy world of security and intelligence. He says he moved to Abu Dhabi because of its "great proximity to potential opportunities across the entire Middle East, and great logistics," adding that it has "a friendly business climate, low to no taxes, free trade and no out of control trial lawyers or labor unions. It's pro-business and opportunity." It also has no extradition treaty with the United States. ---------- Source URL: http://www.thenation.com/article/154739/blackwaters-black-ops Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 863-9977 www.Freedomarchives.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From news at freedomarchives.org Mon Sep 20 18:54:21 2010 From: news at freedomarchives.org (Anti-Imperialist News) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 15:54:21 -0700 Subject: [News] Silent Coup in Haiti Message-ID: Silent Coup in Haiti Written by Darren Ell Monday, 20 September 2010 17:12 Source: The Dominion http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/3654 Once again, the people of Haiti are being denied the government of their choosing. While mainstream media has focused public attention on ineligible candidates such as hip-hop artist Wyclef Jean, the most popular political party in Haiti, Fanmi Lavalas, has been banned from the November 28, 2010, Presidential and Parliamentary elections. Fanmi Lavalas (Lavalas, or FL) grew out of the Lavalas movement that brought down the US-backed Duvalier dictatorship and ushered Jean-Bertrand Aristide to power in 1991. In 2000, during the last democratic election the party was permitted to participate in, it won 90 per cent of Haitians' votes, the equivalent of Canada?s Conservative, Liberal, NDP and Green parties combined; or the equivalent of the US's combined electoral support for Republicans and Democrats. Lavalas' progressive democratic program and Aristide?s goal of lifting Haiti from ?misery to poverty with dignity? has always been an unsavoury proposal for Haiti?s narrow elite and their supporters abroad. Two bloody coups d?etat have unseated Aristide: the first in 1991, backed by the US, and the second in 2004, supported also by Canada and France. In each case, thousands of FL activists and supporters were murdered and imprisoned, and Aristide was sent to exile in February 2004. Since the 2004 coup, FL has been banned from participating in Haitian politics. Support for the party remains strong, though it currently faces significant challenges beyond its exclusion from the elections. The government of Rene Preval, on the other hand, is widely unpopular, especially in the aftermath of the catastrophic January, 2010 earthquake. An estimated 1.7 million survivors now live in unsafe, unsanitary makeshift camps for the internally displaced, facing food insecurity and forced evictions. It is in this climate that the November 2010 elections will be held. To discuss the crisis of democracy, The Dominion spoke with some key political figures on the ground in Haiti and abroad. Brian Concannon is a founder and director of the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti (IJDH), a US-based grassroots organization that does human rights advocacy and pursues legal cases in Haitian, US and international courts. Kim Ives is a member of the editorial board of Haiti Liberte, a progressive Haitian newspaper. Roger Annis is one of Canada?s foremost Haiti solidarity activists and a member of Canada Haiti Action Network. Akinyele Umoja is an Associate Professor of African-American Studies at Georgia State University and founding member of the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement. He recently returned from meetings with popular organizations in Haiti. Nora Rasman is the Interim Director of Latin America and Caribbean Policy at TransAfrica Forum. She specializes in UN interventions in Haiti and has extensive post-earthquake experience on the ground in Haiti. Darren Ell: Is there any way of knowing if Fanmi Lavalas is as popular today as it was prior to the earthquake? Brian Concannon: The best way of measuring its popular support would be through a fair election, but the Haitian government is not allowing that to happen. Other indicators of its popularity, which have correlated to electoral landslides in the past, point to continuing support for Lavalas. These measures include my own surveys of people I meet in Haiti, attendance at demonstrations, statements from grassroots leaders and perhaps most indicative, the efforts that Lavalas opponents at home and abroad are making to prevent the Haitian people from freely choosing their leaders. Kim Ives: Anybody doing a cursory sidewalk poll can establish FL?s support in a few hours. In March 2010, I asked dozens of people: ?In the quake?s aftermath, would you like to see the return of President Aristide?? The responses came back 90 per cent in favor, 10 per cent against. Another key indicator of that support was the success of the April and June 2009 nationwide boycotts of the partial Senate elections, where less than five per cent of the population participated because FL was excluded. What is the reason for Fanmi Lavalas? popularity? Brian Concannon: When I have asked this question, Haitian voters?many of them critical of some FL policies or leaders?usually say, ?Because Lavalas (or President Aristide) has not betrayed the Haitian people.? Voters believe that FL at least tries to implement progressive policies designed to promote social equality in Haiti and improve the lives of the majority of Haitians who are poor, and resists pressure from Haitian elites and the international community to increase social inequality. Akinyele Umoja: Lavalas has won every election they?ve run in, but the US, French and Canadian Governments all have interests in Haiti and don?t want to see the Lavalas agenda put forward. FL invests in people, emphasizing infrastructure investment in schools, roads and hospitals. That is not the priority of foreign interest or the Haitian elite. It?s quite shocking that despite the repression people have endured for voting for Lavalas in the past they still remain loyal to the party. Kim Ives: Besides their investment in the poor majority, FL really is the people. There are dozens of different bases (?baz?), often with rivalries and political differences. The national leadership is weak and not really respected, but the idea and symbol of popular power still remains with FL and Aristide. What is the current state of Fanmi Lavalas? How organized is it and how did the earthquake affect it? Are there splits in the party? Akinyele Umoja: As someone who has worked in the civil rights movement in the US where repression was long and intense, I know that repression has a negative effect on any such movement. Party representatives I met in Haiti suggested that this has occurred in Haiti and that the movement is not consolidated. Yet it seems to have widespread support. On the celebration of Aristide?s birthday on July 15, 12,000 people marched. If they can do that, they can mobilize people politically now. Kim Ives: FL is rent by splits, has weak national leadership, and has a very ambiguous official program, all of which is complained about by its entire membership base. It is organized around small groups called Ti Fanmi which often have disputes with each other. Aristide designates its leaders but they are unpopular with or unknown to the base. While the base might remain strongly attached to Aristide, it often resents and rejects his appointees. This is currently the situation with, for example, Dr. Maryse Narcisse. Despite this leadership void at the top, the mid-level Lavalas leaders are very strong and dynamic. Many of them are leaders in coalitions like PLONBAVIL and Tet Kole Oganizasyon Popile. They generally are more radical than the official party line, calling for things like an end to the foreign military occupation of Haiti (a call Narcisse has never made), the overhaul of the Provisional Electoral Council (Conseil Electoral Provisoire, or CEP) that approves candidates, Preval?s resignation and the formation of a provisional government to hold elections. Much of this Lavalas base has also been involved in the defence of women subject to rape in the IDP camps, and the defence of the IDP camp residents from eviction by landowners. How does Fanmi Lavalas? platform differ from that of other candidates? Kim Ives: Generally, candidates in Haiti have very conventional and harmless platforms, calling futilely for things like jobs, education, health, roads and so on. FL?s last ?program? was released 11 years ago and was called ?Investir dans l?Humain? (Invest in People), but FL has always been defined, despite attempts to dilute its message and ranks, by the program put forward by the Lavalas movement leaders, headed by Aristide in 1990, who called for Haiti?s ?second independence,? meaning a break with the US, France and Canada, taxation of Haiti?s rich to benefit the poor, and the political marginalization of anti-democratic forces like the Duvalierists and neo-Duvalierists. But officially in 2010, FL is not proposing anything radically different from any of the other candidates. Why have so many observers stated that the CEP,the organization that approves the official list of candidates, is not credible? Brian Concannon: The CEP was chosen in 2009 through an unconstitutional process that gave the president undue influence over the choice of councillors. Over the past year, the Council has confirmed the fears of observers across the political spectrum that it would advance the interests of the president?s party over the interests of the constitution and Haiti?s voters. The Council?s most egregious act has been the unjustified disqualification of 14 political parties from across the spectrum, including FL, from the legislative elections. A detailed analysis of the problematic nature of the CEP is available on the IJDH website. Why has the CEP banned Fanmi Lavalas from the electoral process? Brian Concannon: The CEP provided verbal justifications for FL?s banning from the upcoming 2010 legislative elections, none of which was formally stated in a legal document, and none of which is legally justified. The Council initially claimed that a mandate sent by President Aristide to allow another party leader to register FL candidates was not authentic, then that it was not appropriately notarized. When both those claims were disproven, the Council changed course and said that FL?s failure to file some documents before the April 2009 Senatorial elections (from which FL was also illegally excluded) prevented its participation in the elections. FL was banned from the upcoming 2010 Presidential elections by a CEP decree that parties could not register unless the head of the party registered in person. Haitian law provides no basis for such a claim. In Haiti as in Canada or the US, people are freely allowed to delegate authority through authenticated written instruments. This action by the CEP was clearly aimed at FL, because it is the only party whose leader is in involuntary exile. If Fanmi Lavalas cannot run candidates, what choices are left to Haitians? Kim Ives: Many Haitians will seek to boycott the November elections if they go forward (and that is a big ?if?) or to disrupt them in other ways. Some may support the candidacies of the ?stealth? Lavalas candidates?those who are posturing to be seen as Aristide's heir: Jean Henry Ceant, Yvon Neptune, Leslie Voltaire, Yves Christallin or Dr. Gerard Blot. The IJDH has detailed the challenges the earthquake created for elections: the loss of innumerable identification cards, identifying the deceased in the electoral lists, the destruction of polling stations and the displacement of the population. They have also stated that ?if elections are not held, Haiti?s extraordinary difficulties will be compounded by the lack of a credible, democratic power in Haiti.? What could be the consequences for Haiti if credible elections are not held? How is this going to play out on the ground in Haiti given the post-earthquake reality? Kim Ives: If credible elections are not held, which is likely, a large percentage of the population will boycott the polling. Alternatively, the population could, in an unofficial manner, vote in large numbers for one of the ?stealth? Lavalas candidates, or possibly even for former Prime Minister Jacques-Edouard Alexis if he continues to make Aristide?s return one of his principle planks. Under the first scenario, the ?winner? of the election will be seen as illegitimate by the population, leaving a very fragile political situation. The slightest incident (historically, usually the shooting of children) could set off riots and calls for the president?s resignation. This is, of course, why the UN occupation troops remain deployed in Haiti: to repress precisely this type of popular uprising. In the second scenario, if one of the ?stealth? Lavalas candidates manages to get a popular following and ?take? the vote in some way, then that candidate would come into office with a great deal of popular expectations riding on him. He will then either betray that popular trust put in him by toeing the line like Preval did, or try to challenge the restrictions placed on him by the UN forces, the Interim Commission to Reconstruct Haiti and the international financial institutions. If he does this, he will quickly be demonized and eliminated in one way or another. Betrayal however is the most likely outcome. In either case, the constellation of progressive groups orbiting the offices of the Bureau des avocats internationaux (BAI) and Haiti Liberte will continue to gain strength and credibility, as their predictions of either bogus elections or a betraying leader are borne out. This embryonic resistance front, in turn, will eventually crystallize into a more organized and disciplined organization or a broad social movement under the leadership of a symbolic leader, similar to what is happening in Latin America. How this later aftermath would play out depends on whether Aristide returns or not. If Aristide did return, it would only be if one of the ?stealth? Lavalas candidates, or Alexis, wins. On his return, although he would devote himself to his university and foundation, Aristide would become a huge power broker. However, Washington will do everything in its considerable power to prevent Aristide?s return What has been the reaction in Canadian and American political circles to the banning of Fanmi Lavalas from the 2010 elections? Roger Annis: I'm not aware of a single Canadian political party or representative aware of the undemocratic character of the upcoming election in Haiti or voicing concern about it. Interestingly, the federal government is by all accounts following developments closely. Minister of Foreign Affairs Lawrence Cannon was in Haiti for three days in early May to get a first-hand look at Canada's support for prisons and police training and equipping. He announced new spending in those areas and he was an early voice speaking in support of a sham election. Haiti Liberte has called the sham election "the first order of business of the Haiti Interim Reconstruction Commission." In other words, while we were treated to words and speeches by the foreign powers following the earthquake in favor of meaningful aid and reconstruction, what we have received is an inadequate or failed relief effort combined with a near-stealth plan to impose a fraudulent election that will, again in the words of Haiti Liberte, "lead the country towards a deepening dependence on the imperialist countries, feet and hands tied as in the olden days of slavery." Brian Concannon: There has been very little interest in American political circles. Representative Maxine Waters, who regularly stands up for justice in Haiti, has been trying to raise interest in the US House of Representatives, with little result so far. Senator Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, issued a report in June that strongly criticized the political party exclusions, and suggested that the US reconsider its support for the flawed process. That report had little impact. The US Administration, like much of the official International Community, believes that President Preval?s team has done a good job managing Haiti, including advances in financial accountability and transparency, and would like to see that team continue to run Haiti. This is a short-term expedient that will come back to haunt the US, Canada and other countries because the elections will not produce a government with the political or moral legitimacy to effectively implement a reconstruction plan. The government will have to make very difficult decisions (such as about rural versus urban spending, initiatives supporting the middle class versus the poor, etcetera) and request its citizenry?already tired and angry?to make more sacrifices. This will be very difficult for a government lacking popular support. To some extent, the Haitian government and MINUSTAH (the UN forces) will be able to keep basic peace by force of arms, but that will not allow effective governance. I also fear that citizens who feel they cannot choose their government through the ballot will engage in more disruptive tactics, which will lead to social unrest and possibly a violent response by the police and MINUSTAH, which will in turn touch off a cycle of violence. Akinyele Umoja: A minority has called for the inclusion of Lavalas because they know if they don?t, the elections could be easily exposed as unfair. Others hope for some minor Lavalas representative to be included and co-opted into a different platform. The dominant view remains unchanged. The blocking of Lavalas has the blessing of the US and surely the blessing of Bill Clinton. How about Canadian and American media? We hear a lot about Wyclef Jean but nothing about Fanmi Lavalas. Roger Annis: Canada's media has failed to inform Canadians about the flawed election in the making, including the formal exclusion of Haiti's only mass representative party, Fanmi Lavalas. This is not simply oversight or ignorance. I have conducted extensive correspondence with programs and senior news editors at CBC Radio about this matter, for several months now. They are either disbelieving or disinterested. The same can be said for the editors of Canada's print media. This is not a proper response from a serious media outlet, but sadly, Haiti does not seem to merit the same standard of journalism that might apply to similar situations in other countries. Imagine, for a moment, that the government in Venezuela was conducting that country's electoral affairs in a way similar to Rene Preval's discredited regime in Haiti. Canada's editors and news writers would be screaming, and writing, at the top of their lungs. And we wouldn't hear the end of it from the federal government. All this places major responsibilities before the Haiti solidarity movement and to anyone else in Canada concerned about Haiti's fate. Will we let this sham electoral process pass unchallenged? I am confident that we won't, that we will find the means to assist the people of Haiti who are waging the battle for democracy, social justice and electoral accountability. That's what got the Canada Haiti Action Network started in the first place, in 2004, and it's where we must keep moving. Nora Rasman: Due to his international notoriety, Wyclef Jean brought the elections issue to the forefront for a short time when he declared his candidacy, was rejected and repealed. It is positive that any attention around elections has been generated, but very little media coverage has addressed the fundamental problems with the upcoming elections. If the immediate concerns of those affected by the quake are not addressed, the reconstruction and long-term rebuilding process will exclude the Haitian majority and increase the possibility of political instability. Brian Concannon: The mainstream American media has a bias towards covering personalities over policies in all elections, including our own. Reporters and editors claim that it?s what Americans like to read. The Wyclef Jean coverage carries that bias to an extreme. It has devoted extensive space to a clearly ineligible candidate with no political experience running with a party that has never won any elected office. At the same time, it ignores the disqualification of the party that has won every free election held in Haiti for 20 years, always by a landslide. The US equivalent to what?s happening in Haiti would be President Obama forming a new party before our 2012 elections, and announcing that the Democrats and Republicans were disqualified, then California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger?who was born in Austria and thus constitutionally barred from the Presidency?announcing his candidacy, then the press foaming at the mouth about how his entry into the race has energized action hero movie fans, while ignoring the disqualification of the parties that win every election. Kim Ives: Wyclef Jean made it clear that he would head a pro-US administration and work with the UN and USAID. Meanwhile, Washington and its media are trying to ?turn the page? on the Lavalas movement. The first stage is always to ignore and minimize it. If FL continues to stymie Washington?s agenda in Haiti, the mainstream media will set about demonizing the FL and its leaders, just as it did six years ago. Is it fair to say that the international community does not want to see democracy in Haiti? And if so, why, especially considering Haiti?s great need and the sums of money promised for reconstruction by the international community? Brian Concannon: The international community wants to see a ?democracy? in Haiti that betrays the desires of Haitian voters in favor of the dictates of the international community and Haitian elites. This is obviously problematic from a moral and ethical perspective, but it is equally problematic from the perspective of a North American taxpayer. President John F. Kennedy famously remarked that ?those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.? The International Community seems intent on proving this maxim over and over. As long as Haitian voters are not allowed to choose their leaders, there will be violence in Haiti (mostly coming from anti-democratic forces, but some from democratic forces as well), which will imperil any money provided for Haiti?s reconstruction, and provoke continued expensive military intervention in Haiti. Akinyele Umoja: I resent the term ?international community? because it doesn?t refer to the people in these countries. It refers to very specific interests in the US, France and Canada. In the US, the Monroe Doctrine states clearly that the US will control the Caribbean and the Americas to suit its needs. The US doesn?t like any country that seeks a political or economic course independent of its own. Ordinary people would support democracy in Haiti, but they get so much disinformation that they don?t know what?s really going on. Kim Ives: The US, France and Canada cannot tolerate any sovereign and nationalist state in Latin America, least of all Haiti. Their subversion and coups d?etat of the past show that clearly. In particular, the US won?t stand for it because of Haiti?s geopolitical position across the strategic Windward Passage from socialist Cuba and its sharing of the island with the Dominican Republic (DR), an important US ally and business partner. Any radical progressive social change in Haiti would have a huge impact on the DR, where many Haitian migrants and Haitian ancestry Dominicans live, many travelling back and forth between the two countries. Haiti is also, after Cuba, the most populous nation in the Caribbean, and in many ways, Latin America's most African country. Racism has played a major role in Haiti's subjugation, denigration, and constant political crises?stoked by North America and Europe since Haiti's ground-breaking 1804 revolution. The great sums of money promised to Haiti after the quake are primarily earmarked to go to US contractors like Halliburton, DynCorp, and Kellogg Brown & Root [now KBR]. The ?reconstruction? is a golden opportunity to channel billions to the Pentagon?s principal contractors and rebuild Haiti as Washington sees fit (ie; more like Puerto Rico, a US colony whose national economic independence has been almost completely repressed, subjugated or consumed by US multinationals, which have polluted the environment, doctored the legal and political system and corrupted the Indigenous culture). This is why the US has essentially taken over the Haitian government through the Interim Commission to Reconstruct Haiti (CIRH). How important is this election to Haitians, especially given the struggle for survival since the earthquake? Nora Rasman: The exclusion of FL has added skepticism to people?s views on the usefulness of these elections. For many of the camp leaders and those living in camps, elections are not a priority because there are so many other outstanding immediate issues on the table, including securing basic goods and services on a daily basis. People affected by the earthquake?particularly those who have been internally displaced?are challenged to obtain consistent access to food, water, health, sanitation and washing services, education or job opportunities. Akinyele Umoja: In the camps, the main issue is survival: safety, health and food. But people are tying it to politics. They see themselves as Lavalas, so they feel that if their party was allowed to participate, they would be interested in the elections, but with the current group of candidates, they just see it as a sham that will not help them at all. What can concerned citizens in Canada and the US do about this issue? Brian Concannon: Concerned citizens outside of Haiti need to protect our ideals, our tax dollars and Haitian voters against our own governments? polices, by 1) staying informed about Haiti, and 2) staying involved. The IJDH has a program called "Half-Hour for Haiti," which helps people do both. Anyone can sign up on our website. Nora Rasman: Concerned citizens abroad can argue for free, fair and transparent elections to move forward. Holding your government, as well as national and international non-governmental organizations, accountable for their activities is of the utmost importance. To this end, we suggest that people become engaged by contacting their elected officials to tell them the crisis on the ground has not ended while emphasizing the need for Haitian civil society organizations to be part of the long-term planning for reconstruction, including the electoral process. Or building concrete relationships with solidarity organizations in Haiti, the US and Canada, organizations that support a fair and representative electoral processes. Akinyele Umoja: We need to challenge our own governments. In the US, we need to ask ourselves the question of how Aristide can be returned to the country because we took him away. We need to understand our own government?s involvement in the impoverishment of Haiti. If people hadn?t stood up around the world against apartheid in South Africa, it wouldn?t have fallen, and we need to do the same work around the issue of Haiti. Kim Ives: People should provide material and financial support to the resistance being carried out by coalitions like PLONBAVIL, groups like the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti and Bureau des avocats internationaux (BAI), and media like Haiti Liberte. Originally from Saskatchewan, Darren Ell is a teacher, photographer and freelance journalist residing in Montreal. Between 2006 and 2008, he documented the legacy of the 2004 coup d?etat in online publications with the Citizenshift, The Dominion and Haiti Action. His photographic installation on this subject, Haiti Holdup, was exhibited at Concordia University in Montreal. The Dominion Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 863-9977 www.Freedomarchives.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From news at freedomarchives.org Tue Sep 21 10:04:13 2010 From: news at freedomarchives.org (Anti-Imperialist News) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 07:04:13 -0700 Subject: [News] Glen Beck wrecks second coming, offs Jesus Message-ID: Dear Gang - Another breaking news story, censored by the mainstream media: GLENN BECK WRECKS SECOND COMING, OFFS JESUS (PU) After two thousand years of looking forward to the return of Jesus Christ, Christians were extremely disappointed today to learn that their born-again Lord and Savior had died again, this time at the hands of author, talk-show host, and entrepreneur Glenn Beck. News of the ?Messiah-cide? leaked out this morning when Mr. Beck was arraigned in federal district court in Manhattan. ?Go ahead, give me the chair,? screamed a flushed and tearful Glenn Beck to the judge, while TV cameras rolled and reporters crowded in. ?But I did this country a favor. Americans thought Jesus was about divine justice ? I found out he?s for social and economic justice. He wants total socialist global domination over the entire globe. May Day, May Day, there?s a coup going down!? Using a chalkboard to illustrate his points, Mr. Beck drew a goose-stepping stick figure of the Son of God, sporting a Che Guevara mustache and beret. He explained that, according to the plan Jesus had imparted to him, the coming Millennium would entail no Rapture, no eternal damnation; only a ?Thousand-Year Plan? of complete societal and material equality. This rampant egalitarianism, surmised Mr. Beck, would destroy the profit motive and, with it, civilization itself. ?You see? Those loaves and fishes?? panted Mr. Beck, beads of sweat popping over his round, pink face as he scrawled overlapping circles to signify the food items. ?Jesus gives a bunch of welfare cheats free loaves and free fishes, and the American people lose their homes. He heals the sick, and YOU get socked paying health insurance. He tells you, give away your private property, help marauding foreigners find a better life. But that only destroys the Constitution and your God-given right to get rich. Face it, judge, Jesus doesn?t like white people.? Mr. Beck, who was raised Catholic and became a Mormon in 1999, went on to say that, while Americans should still be guaranteed freedom of religion, the freedom of a real-life avatar to dwell among Americans should be severely limited. ?If everybody actually lived in a state of Jesus-endorsed ?love-thy-neighbor-as-thyself? enlightenment, our country?s place in the world would go down the toilet,? shouted Mr. Beck. ?Stand up, America. Don?t let some spiritual brown-shirt tell you you?re no better than the average Pakistani drone-attack victim. Death is for losers, baby.? Asked to recount the events leading up to the killing, Glenn Beck said that he first learned of Jesus? comeback a few weeks ago, sitting in his living room, after becoming enraged at Rachel Maddow on TV. ?I got so mad I kicked the leg off my coffee table. ?Jesus Fucking Christ,? I cried, ?where?s a goddamn carpenter when you need one??? Mr. Beck then described a sudden radiance that permeated the room, while a longhaired, bearded Middle Eastern man took on physical form. ?At first, I thought he was Al Qaeda,? said Mr. Beck, ?but after he healed the leg back on, I knew.? Mr. Beck spoke of his relationship with Jesus as at first ?deeply fulfilling,? with Jesus fixing small things around the house in exchange for a mattress in the garage. The two enjoyed moonlit walks on the beach, marshmallow roasts, and tickle-fights. But Mr. Beck began to sense that Jesus was not interested in ?the good life? when he refused to put on a three-piece business suit that Mr. Beck had bought for him. ?Then the PC-thugs started dropping by. Jesus would hang out in the garage with these weirdoes, talking about supporting gay marriage and getting Troy Davis off death row. I began to wonder if Jesus was a secret Muslim.? Noticing that Jesus spent hours on the phone, Mr. Beck had the calls traced, and found that most were to environmentalist and civil rights activist Van Jones. ?I overheard them say how they were going to drive out the money-changers and abolish the capitalist system. There was lots of giggling, I remember. I though, my God, how could all those ?WWJD? bracelets be so wrong?? Finally, Mr. Beck decided to ?reclaim the truth and justice movement? and made Jesus a poisoned falafel sandwich. ?It was easy,? he concluded. ?No nails, no violence. He just looked at me sadly. Then he died. Chump.? At first, a tidal wave of rage and disbelief convulsed the nation, as Americans heard Mr. Beck confess that he had inconveniently re-slain a savior who had already been pre-slain for their convenience. Slowly, however, as the hours ticked by and Mr. Beck?s testimony streamed live on the Internet and TV, some people came to see a certain wisdom in Mr. Beck?s act. Tea Party member Amy McPherson reflected, ?I had wanted Jesus to wash away my sins and save me. But then I thought, what if Mr. Do-Unto-Others wouldn?t let me carry my Luger? That?s a deal-breaker.? Even presiding judge Marvin Mandible expressed cautious sympathy for Mr. Beck?s act. ?While the court finds illegality in the re-murdering of a loving spiritual entity, it nevertheless cannot endorse the intent of the aforesaid entity to prevent the court from refusing to hear cases involving the extraordinary rendition of torture victims. Lest we forget, terrorists are pure evil. I don?t think Jesus ever got that.? Despite his professed support for the death penalty, Mr. Beck will probably face a sentence of life everlasting. ? Susie Day, 2010 Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 863-9977 www.Freedomarchives.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From news at freedomarchives.org Tue Sep 21 11:20:09 2010 From: news at freedomarchives.org (Anti-Imperialist News) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 08:20:09 -0700 Subject: [News] Zionist Dialectics: Past and Future Message-ID: M. Shahid Alam ? Zionist Dialectics: Past and Future By Guest Post ? Sep 21st, 2010 at 7:20 http://palestinethinktank.com/2010/09/21/m-shahid-alam-zionist-dialectics-past-and-future/ Excerpted from: Israeli Exceptionalism (Palgrave: 2009) ?My God! Is this the end? Is this the goal for which our fathers have striven and for whose sake all generations have suffered? Is this the dream of a return to Zion which our people have dreamt for centuries: that we now come to Zion to stain its soil with innocent blood?? Ahad Ha?am, 1921 This study has employed a dialectical framework for analyzing the destabilizing logic of Zionism. We have examined this logic as it has unfolded through time, driven by the vision of an exclusionary colonialism, drawing into its circuit ? aligned with it and against it ? nations, peoples, forces, and civilizations whose actions and interactions impinge on the trajectory of Zionism, and, in turn, who are changed by this trajectory. It would be a bit simplistic to examine the field of interactions among the different actors in this historic drama on the essentialist assumption that these actors and their interests are unchanging. Instead, we need to explore the complex ways in which the Zionists have worked ? and, often have succeeded ? to alter the behavior of the other political actors in this drama: and, how, in turn, the Zionists respond to these changes. Most importantly, we need to explore all the ways in which the Zionists have succeeded in mobilizing the resources of the United States and other Western powers to serve their specific objectives. Consider a list of the political actors who have had more than a passing connection to the Zionist project and, who, at one time or another, have affected or have been affected by this project. First, there are the different Zionist factions, the Jewish diaspora and, later, the state of Israel. These entities are overlapping, with the degrees of overlap between any two of them changing over time. The second set of actors consists of Western powers ? especially, the United States, Britain, and France ? the Christian Zionists especially in the United States, the Soviet Union and its allies in Eastern Europe. Finally, there are actors who are the direct and indirect victims of the Zionist project, those who have paid the costs of Zionist success. They form four concentric circles around Israel, including the Palestinians, the Arabs, the Middle East, and the Islamicate. These three sets of actors make up the dramatis personae in the unfolding tragedy of the Zionist project. Clearly, the number of actors involved, their variety, and, not least, the multilayered power commanded by the Zionists and their allies would indicate that Zionism is no sideshow. Directly, it has involved much of the Western world, on one side, and the global Islamicate on the other side, who will soon make up one-fourth of the world?s population. Many white settlers established colonies in Africa during the nineteenth century. In Palestine, the Jews established the only white settler colony to be established in the Middle East ? or for that matter, anywhere in Asia. Of all these colonial settler projects, only the Jewish settlers in Palestine have endured. In 1948, only three decades after they gained British backing for their project, the Jewish colons created their own state, Israel, which, almost overnight, became the dominant power in the region, capable of defeating any combination of the military forces of the neighboring states. Within two decades of its founding, the ?tiny? Jewish state had also acquired an arsenal of nuclear weapons, the only country in the region with such weapons of mass extermination. In recent decades, militarily, Israel has ranked behind only three other countries, the United States, Russia, and China. In addition, Israel has forged a special relationship with the United States, which finances its military, arms it, and shields the country from the sanction of international laws, leaving it free to expand its colonial project, and threaten and attack its neighbors at will. After September 11, Israel and its allies were a major?if not decisive?factor in pushing the United States to invade and occupy Iraq. For several years now, they have been itching to instigate the United States into a war against Iran. How did the Zionists manage to do all this? In part, the answer to this question lies in taking a measure of the forces that underpin Israel?s capacity to endure. Had the French colons survived in Algeria, had they partitioned the country to create a white colonial settler state along the Mediterranean coast, like Israel, this settler state too would be armed to the teeth, backed by a special relationship with France, and perpetually at war with Algerian refugees and with its Arab/African neighbors. In 1960, David Ben-Gurion had urged Charles De Gaulle, the French president, to create a colonial settler state in Algeria in the rich agricultural areas along the Mediterranean coast. In the Algerian civil war, Israel had supported the faction within the Organisation Arm?e Secrete (OAS), the underground militant organization of the colons in Algeria, which wanted to partition Algeria. Had it gone through, the partition would have prolonged the conflict in Algeria, created an Israeli twin in North Africa, and deepened the bond between France and Israel. Unluckily for Israel, de Gaulle firmly rejected partition. He was convinced that French rule could not be maintained in Algeria and conceded independence to the Algerians. How did the Jewish colons in Palestine succeed in creating an exclusionary colonial settler state in the middle of the twentieth century, and continue to grow with support from a surrogate mother country, while the French colons in Algeria, the Italians in Libya or the British colons in Kenya had to give up their colonial projects? The answer to this question is simple. The white colons in Algeria, Libya, or Kenya simply did not have enough influence over the mother country?over France, Italy, and Britain?to overrule what the elites in the mother country had decided was in their interest: to pull out of their colonies. The Jewish colons in Palestine had more power than the white colons in Algeria, Libya, and Kenya. Where did their power come from? The success of Jewish colons in Palestine and the failure of the colons in Algeria, Libya, or Kenya is a paradox. The French, Italian, and British settlers had a natural mother country, a country of origin, with whose people they shared an ethnic bond. The Jewish colons in Palestine did not have a natural mother country, a powerful Jewish state to support their colonial project. Yet, their colonizing project succeeded, and they drove out the Palestinians to create a nearly pure Jewish state in Palestine. The Jewish colons did not pull off this feat on their own; they succeeded because of their ability to recruit the greatest Western powers, and many others besides, to support their colonial project. Somehow, the Zionists turned what could well have been a fatal deficiency for their colonial project ? the absence of a natural mother country ? into their greatest asset. They gained the freedom to pick and choose their mother country. How did the Zionists bring this about? The Jews were not a majority in any country, but there existed a Jewish minority in nearly every Western country. In itself, the presence of Jewish minorities could not have been a source of strength; a weak Jewish minority in any country could do little to help their coreligionists in another country. What made the Jewish minorities different was that they carried a weight that far outweighed their numbers. Over the course of the nineteenth century, they had become an important, often vital, part of the financial, industrial, commercial, and intellectual elites in several of the most important Western countries, including Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and the United States. Moreover, the most prominent members of these elites had cultivated ties with each other across national boundaries. Once these Jewish elites, spread across the key Western countries, had decided to support the Zionist project, they would become a force in global politics. On the one hand, this would tempt the great powers to support Zionism, if this could buy them the help of the Jewish communities, based in a rival or friendly power, to push their host country in a desirable direction. Conversely, once the Zionists recognized this tendency, they too would seek to win support for their cause by offering the support of Jewish communities in key Western countries. It would be in their interest to exaggerate the results that Jewish communities in this or that country might be able to deliver. During periods of intense conflicts ? such as World War I ? when the fate of nations hung in the balance, the competition for Zionist support became more intense than ever. This placed the Zionists in a strong position to trade their favors for the commitment of the great powers to their goals. In September 1917, this competition persuaded Britain, at a difficult moment in the execution of its war, to throw its support behind the Zionist project. The Zionists continue to market their colonial project as a haven for Jews, fleeing anti-Semitic persecution. This is misleading. Overwhelmingly, Jews fleeing persecution in Europe have stayed away from this ?haven? when alternatives were available. On the contrary, the Zionists were counting on support from the anti-Semites to propel their nationalist-cum-colonial project. They were counting on anti-Semitic persecution to send Jewish colons to Palestine; and they were counting on the European anti-Semite?s desire to be rid of Jews to recruit Western powers to support their colonial project in Palestine. Zionism was primarily a nationalist movement, whose origins predated the resurgence of anti-Semitism in the late nineteenth century. Even then, most Jews sought to combat anti-Semitism through assimilation, Jewish autonomism, and socialist revolutions. When forced to emigrate, they overwhelmingly preferred destinations outside Palestine. The fortunes of Zionism improved only when most Western countries closed their doors to Jewish immigrants. When these doors were closing in the early 1900s, it was little opposed by the Jewish diaspora, whose leadership now identified increasingly with Zionist goals. Little pressure too was applied to reopen these doors before the 1960s. The Zionists have received support, since the launching of their movement, from the dominant Protestant segment of Christianity, whose theology reinstated the Jews to their covenant with God. As a result, a few Protestants began calling for the ?restoration? of Jews to Palestine in the seventeenth century; at the time, Jews looked upon these proposals with deep suspicion. Since the nineteenth century, a new group of evangelical Christians began to support the ?restoration? of Jews, because they believed this was a necessary prelude to the Second Coming. From its home in Britain, this movement spread to the United States, where, in recent decades, cheered by Israeli victories, it has become an important source of support for Zionism in the United States. In no small measure, the success of the Zionist colonial project was magnified by the weakness of the Arabs in the Middle East. Unlike Algerians in the nineteenth century or Libyans between the two World Wars, the Palestinians were slow in resisting Jewish colonization ? the first serious resistance was mounted in 1936 ? and, once beaten, in 1939, they could not reorganize for more than two decades. More fatefully, the Jewish colonization of Palestine did not evoke a response in the larger Arab/Islamicate world that was commensurate with the scale of the Zionist threat to the Islamicate. This period is marked by the absence of any concerted efforts in Syria, Egypt, Iraq, or the Arabian Peninsula to resist Jewish colonization before it would become undefeatable. The Arab nationalists began to stir when it was too late, after Israel had established itself and soon would be in a position to smash them before they could build their strength. Anxious to conceal the power of the Jewish lobby, Zionists often argue that the Western powers supported Zionism only because the Jewish state served their strategic interests in the Middle East. We have shown that Zionism was in conflict with the long-term interests of Britain and the United States. Exigencies of war and the presence of a strong contingency of Christian Zionists in the cabinet of Lloyd George explain British support for the Balfour Declaration in 1917. On the other hand, the strong U.S. support in 1948 for the partition of Palestine ? and later ? was the product of a domestic Jewish lobby. In the 1940s ? and even later ? the United States commanded considerable goodwill in the Arab world. The populist movements in the Arab world directed their anticolonial animus against the British and the French, not the Americans. In addition, the Arab dynasties and petit bourgeoisie, who expected to gain power after the departure of the colonial rulers, would have been quite happy to work with their former rulers and the United States. Arab and local nationalisms?weakly founded, in any case ? had no radical thrust. It takes little prescience to see that the insertion of Israel in the Middle East ? far from serving Western strategic interests ? was certain to create threats to these interests, where none existed before. Nor was this prescience lacking in Washington. The officials at the State and Defense Departments saw this clearly, but they were overruled by the exigencies of presidential politics. Once created, however, Israel had the resources to create and entrench the perception that it is a strategic asset, that it defends the vital interests of Western powers in the Middle East. The creation of a Jewish colonial settler state in the Arab world ? one that would have to engage in massive ethnic cleansing ? was the perfect incitement for starting a rising spiral of anger against Israel's Western backers, chiefly, the United States. Arab anger over Israel, exacerbated by Israel?s truculent policies, would continue to fuel Arab nationalism and push it in a radical, anti-Western direction. Even so, the United States persisted in its doomed efforts, during the 1950s, to bring about peace between the Arabs and Israel. Israel would ensure that these efforts would not succeed, forcing the Arab nationalist states to turn to the Soviet Union. Inevitably, at this stage, Washington would see radicalized Arab nationalism as a threat to its interests in the Middle East. The first circle was complete. Israel had manufactured the threats that would make it look like a strategic asset. In a preemptive strike in June 1967, Israel confirmed this by defeating Egypt and Syria, the two leading Arab nationalist states. Once this paradigm was in place, Israel and its Jewish allies in the United States worked hard to ensure that it stayed in place. Jewish Zionists in the United States, working both inside and outside the Jewish community, worked to whittle down the ability of the American political system to take any positions contrary to the interests of Israel. In the aftermath of the victory in the June War, and Israel?s new policy of expanding its frontiers to incorporate the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights, a new, more aggressively pro-Israel cadre of Jews took over the leadership of the mainstream Jewish organizations in the United States. They worked to suppress dissent within the Jewish community, used campaign contributions to elect the strongest pro-Israeli candidates to the Congress, and maintained discipline inside the Congress by punishing dissenters at the next election. They cultivated the Christian Zionists, who were being energized by Israeli successes. At the same time, pro-Israeli think tanks produced hundreds of position papers, journal articles, magazines, reports, and books, resurrecting atavistic fears of a dangerous, resurgent, anti-Western Islam that was the greatest threat to the power of the United States. The secret of Zionist success, then, lies in the manner in which it overcame the chief flaw in its design: it did not have a natural mother country to support its colonial project. By winning over the Jews in the Western diaspora, and galvanizing them to use their wealth, intellect, and activism to promote Zionist causes, the Zionists succeeded in substituting the West for the missing natural mother country. Over time, nearly every major Western country (including the Soviet Union) has offered critical help in the creation, survival and success of Israel. Most importantly, the two greatest Western powers, Britain and the United States, successively, have placed their military might squarely behind the Zionist project despite the damage that this inflicted on their vital interests in the Middle East. The United States has already paid dearly for its pro-Zionist policies since 1948. Over time, these costs would include the hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to Israel and its Arab allies, the alienation of the Arab world, an oil embargo, higher oil prices, the rise of Islamic radicalism, and several close confrontations with the Soviet Union in the Middle East. After September 11, 2001, under strong pressure from Israel ? working in league with their neoconservatives allies ? the United States launched a costly but unnecessary war against Iraq. In turn, this war galvanized the Islamist radicals, giving them a new theater where they could engage the United States. The United States has financed this war ? and the war in Afghanistan ? by borrowing from China and the oil-rich Arabs. We must also add two other consequences of the Iraq War to the debit in America?s Israeli account: the rise of Iran and the growing challenge to U.S. hegemony in Latin America. The costs that the United States ? and the rest of the Western world ? might incur in the future are likely to be much greater. We can only speculate about these costs, or when they will come due. The repressive, pro-American regimes in the Arab world are not sustainable. When these unpopular regimes begin to fall, and are replaced by Islamist governments, it may become difficult for the United States to maintain its presence in the region. Indeed, it is likely that the United States itself or Israel might trigger this outcome with an attack on Iran. In the opinion of some, this is an accident waiting to happen. Should Israel wither away, the United States will bear much of the collateral damage of this collapse. The withering of the Jewish state could occur due to international pressures against its apartheid regime, a slow loss of nerve as Jewish settlers lose their ?demographic war? with the Palestinians, or loss of deterrence as Israel continues to engage in failed attempts to destroy the Hizbullah and Hamas. Israel and the United States have been joined at the hip for many years. In America?s public discourse, the two have become more and more like each other: they are two exceptional societies, marked by destiny, chosen by God, created by brave pioneers, who have shaped and continue to shape their common destiny through territorial expansion and ethnic cleansing. Should the Jewish state wither away, its much larger twin may begin to wobble. Some consequences of the withering away of Israel might be easy to predict. Over the past century, the successes of the Zionist movement have galvanized many American Jews and Zionist Christians; they will now be disillusioned, in despair, confused, and angry. Probably, most Israeli Jews will want to migrate to the United States, which most Americans will be loath to refuse. Yet, this will give rise to frictions between some sections of Gentiles and Jews and may give rise to pockets of anti-Semitism. Tensions will also rise between Jews and Muslims in the United States. The disillusioned Christian Zionists too may seek to scapegoat all peoples of color, but especially Arab-Americans and Muslims. In all likelihood, the United States will experience growing conflicts among different sections of its population; there will be more racism, hate crimes, and, perhaps, worse. None of this will be good for America?s image as a great country. Although the domestic fallout of the withering of the Israeli state will be serious, the more serious losses for the United States will flow from the erosion of its control over the oil-rich states in the Persian Gulf. It would be foolhardy to predict the contours of the new map that will eventually emerge in the Middle East and the Islamicate. Whatever new structures emerge, these transformations are likely to be violent. On the one hand, the fragmentation imposed on the Islamicate has created local interests that will seek to maintain the status quo. These local interests now will confront Islamist movements that seek to create more integrated structures across the Islamicate. These conflicts will be deeply destabilizing, as India, China, Europe and Russia may choose sides, each eager to replace the United States. Once the U.S.-Israeli straitjacket over the region has been loosened, it will not be easy to fashion a new one made in Moscow, Beijing, Brussels or New Delhi. The Islamicate world today is not what it was during World War I. It is noticeably less inclined to let foreigners draw their maps for them. M. Shahid Alam is professor of economics at Northeastern University. He is author of Challenging Orientalism (IPI: 2007). Contact him at alqalam02760 at yahoo.com. Visit his website at http://qreason.com. Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 863-9977 www.Freedomarchives.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From news at freedomarchives.org Tue Sep 21 11:46:38 2010 From: news at freedomarchives.org (Anti-Imperialist News) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 08:46:38 -0700 Subject: [News] Government infiltration threatens rights and freedom, warn analysts Message-ID: Government infiltration threatens rights and freedom, warn analysts By Eric Ture Muhammad -Contributing Writer- | Last updated: Sep 21, 2010 - 11:29:31 AM ATLANTA (FinalCall.com) - Allegations that a famed photographer who chronicled the most pivotal moments in civil rights history was identified as a paid FBI informant reminded activists, organizations and dissident movements of dangerous government surveillance employed yesterday and today against domestic groups. The last thing one wanted to be thought of in activist circles in the heyday of the civil rights and Black Power movement was an informant or snitch. Providing information and sometimes setting up plots to entrap unsuspecting comrades resulted in deaths, bitter inter- and intra-feuds as well as activists who still languish in prison, not to mention the suffering of those jailed unjustly or who spent decades in exile. Since Ernest Withers the man the Memphis Commercial Appeal reported was an FBI informant is dead, many unanswered questions remain and his family doubts the reports are true. ?Personally, and as a family, we do not believe what has been alleged. It still has to be proven,? Mr. Withers' youngest daughter, Rosalind Withers, told The Associated Press in an interview. Andrew Jerome Withers, Rosalind Withers and Frances Williams vowed to do their own FOIA request and talk to the FBI themselves in efforts to clear their father's name. Still the use of informants yesterday and today cannot be denied and so are reasons for concern. In the current political environment and with passage of so-called anti-terror legislation, such as the post-9-11 Patriots Acts, advocates warn Americans should have major worries about violations of their civil liberties and government ability to spy and pry into their private lives. Informants have been at the center of ?terrorist plots? allegedly involving Muslims from Florida to New York. And Muslim leaders from New York to Los Angeles have complained about agents sent to monitor and infiltrate their places of worship. ?A movement or institution with enough strength and political discipline can usually withstand the damage from informants. Unfortunately, the Black movements in this country have never gained the level of critical mass or cohesion necessary to escape the damage done and that's the case in this era,? observed Professor Hank Williams, and instructor and Ph.D. candidate at the City University of New York. ?This has a direct connection to where we are today politically, since the movement was successfully destroyed and a generation of some of the strongest leaders was lost through political assassination, exile, and other means. Some were bought off, others couldn't handle the pressure, and yet others couldn't see the people around them destroyed. That affects where we are now, since many have survived and are even still at the forefront of struggle, losing the wisdom and momentum of the leaders and organizations that didn't survive the '60s and '70s was a serious blow.? While people should not ?get too wrapped up in the past,? Prof. Williams said, ?one has to wonder how much further along we'd be if the most politically advanced ideas of the organizations and people who didn't make it had been synthesized and acted upon?? On Sept. 12, The Commercial Appeal?once noted itself for the fomenting of tensions and hostilities in its coverage of civil rights and Black liberation issues in Memphis?reported that photographer Withers was as an FBI informant and spied on Dr. Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement. A veteran freelancer, Mr. Withers' photography ranged from the murder of 14-year-old Emmett Till in 1955, to the 1968 assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and beyond. According to the Commercial Appeal, an informant identification number assigned to Mr. Withers was overlooked in the redaction of a 1977 FBI file. The document, obtained via the federal Freedom of Information Act provided by the Commercial Appeal, cites ME 338-R and identifies Mr. Withers. In the right-hand margin the notation ?b7D'' provides justification for the redacted words. Under the FOIA, section b7D allows the FBI to withhold information that would identify confidential sources, according to the report. In the article, Mr. Withers, who died in 2007 at the age of 85, is portrayed in the eyes of the bureau ?as a prolific informant who, from 1968 until 1970, passed on tips and photographs detailing an insider's view of politics, business and everyday life in Memphis' Black Community.? ?The grief-stricken aides photographed by Withers on April 4, 1968, had no clue, but the man they invited in that night was an FBI informant?evidence of how far the agency went to spy on private citizens in Memphis during one of the nation's most volatile periods,? the story read. According to the Commercial Appeal, the story reported was two years in the making. Mr. Withers' children question Commercial Appeal reporting. ?When I heard that, it was just terrifying,? said Rome Withers in an interview with The Tri-State Defender on Sept. 14, speaking about his father. ?I just hope that the community understands that this is only an attempt to really demonize his Withers' (photography) collection or even to devalue his collection because we have been on an uphill fight to try and maintain and keep his collection intact,? he said. Since his death, the Withers' children say ?forces? have tried to gain control of their father's extensive and unique collection. The family says it is involved in a court battle and wants to make the collection available to the public, particularly so the Black community. It covers Black life beginning in the 1940s, they added. ?Unfortunately, Mr. Withers is not here to answer the allegations or to provide exactly?if anything?what happened. However, what we do know is that J. Edgar Hoover was so diabolical that his hatred for Black people did not stop him from doing what he desired to Whites as well. And like Mr. Withers, we don't know what was held over peoples' heads. We don't know the extent of the threat that anyone found operating in this way, faced,? said Atty. Nkechi Taifa, senior political analyst for criminal and justice reform with the Open Society Poverty Center, in Washington, D.C. ?Why the FBI didn't remove ME 338-R remains unclear, but the evident oversight provides the key that unlocks Withers' secret life,? the paper said. ?They still haven't said what he was doing,? observed satirist and activist Dick Gregory, who was also a target of the FBI's nefarious activities. Mr. Gregory told The Final Call, ?We may never know why this number was not redacted. At the same time, it might help us finally pull some pieces together.? Mr. Gregory took strong issue with some responses to the spying allegations. Civil rights icon Andrew Young has publicly said he always liked Mr. Withers ?because he was a good photographer and was always around.? ?I don't think Dr. King would have minded him making a little money on the side,? Mr. Young, 78, told the Memphis newspaper. ?Can you imagine a Jew in Nazi Germany finding out that a Jew was working with Hitler for the Nazis and then another Jew saying we wouldn't have minded him making a little money on the side?? Mr. Gregory asked. ?It is never acceptable to turn for the enemy,? commented Kalongi Changa, of the Atlanta, Ga.-based Free The People Movement and author of the forthcoming book ?How to Build a People's Army.? He is a grassroots organizer and deals with social and criminal justice issues. ?With all due respect to Andy Young, I think that is one of the most absurd statements that an educated man can make in these days and times. Saying that he thinks that Dr. King wouldn't have minded this man making money snitching on his people is almost equivalent to saying he wouldn't have minded a prostitute making a little money selling her body,? Mr. Changa said. ?Playing with your enemy is like playing with fire?someone or something will eventually get burned.? ?I presume that snitching is older than stealing because a person could steal information and give it away before there was ?property' to steal,? said Dr. Nathan Hare, founder of the San Francisco, Calif.-based Black Think Tank. ?However, though ?snitch' is now generally associated with giving away or selling secret information it also means ?to steal.' So snitching is tantamount to stealing and in most people's minds worse than a thief. There at least used to be a code among thieves that they didn't steal from other thieves, but I don't think there's any sense of honor among snitches, and it is rightfully and universally despised and personified with the words ?rat' as in ?to rat,' ? he said. ?Stool pigeon, which suggests a pigeon sitting on a toilet stool, but is in fact a pigeon used as a decoy to draw others into a net, and thus the snitch becomes an extension of the police or, and for the enemy,? said Dr. Hare. A victim of government surveillance himself because he was closely aligned with a range of Black Power groups, Dr. Hare added, ?The other side of the coin was that so many good guys appeared to be called snitches, who, apparently and probably were not. At one point it looked like people would call anybody who disagreed with them a snitch or an ?agent provocateur,' usually shortened to ?an agent.' ? Dr. Hare said one book about the FBI's dreaded Counterintelligence Program, COINTELPRO, which was designed to disrupt and destroy Black and progressive organizations, misidentified him in connection with the case of former Black Panther Elmer Geronimo ?Ji Jaga? Pratt, who was jailed for 27 years for murders he did not commit. Informant Julius Butler, a member of the Panther Party, testified that Mr. Pratt boasted to him about the murder. Mr. Pratt was only freed after a retired FBI agent admitted the agency had evidence that proved the Vietnam vet was nowhere near the crime scene. Atty. Taifa added: ?I think what we have to do is put it all in perspective. It is one thing to be a snitch, then there is the collaborator and then there is another situation when there is in fact something happening within our communities. Say, one of our leaders is murdered and someone knows who did it. Or, a child is raped or molested and someone has that information for authorities. It is critical to provide that information. But it needs to be clearly distinguished from those who seek financial aggrandizement to bring down the movement, seeking to collaborate with the movement when it is not in our community's best interest,? she said. A long history of spying inside America One would be hard pressed to find an instance where dissident or influential individuals and groups were not monitored regularly by the U.S. government as well as some international agencies. The FBI's Electronic Reading Room houses tens of thousands of pages detailing some of the deepest penetrations into the lives of individuals, organizations and the infiltration of mass movements. Last month, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Asian Law Caucus and the San Francisco Bay Guardian filed a lawsuit against the FBI in an effort to speed the release of FBI records on the investigation and surveillance of Muslim communities in the Bay Area. The civil liberties organizations and The Bay Guardian have requested the records in order to understand and to report on whether and how the FBI are ?investigating Islamic centers and mosques (as well as Christian churches and Jewish synagogues); ?assessing' religious leaders; Infiltrating communities through the use of undercover agents and informants; Training agents in Islam and Muslim culture; and Using race, religion and national origin in deciding whom to investigate; and identifying particular schools for its Junior Agent Program. ?Clear information about the FBI's activities is necessary in order to understand the scope of their surveillance tactics to assess whether they have had a chilling effect on the right to worship freely or to exercise other forms of expression,? said Julia Harumi Mass, staff attorney for the ACLU of Northern California. ?This lawsuit is about transparency. The public is entitled to this information under the Freedom of Information Act.? ?The FBI admitted in March that our clients' FOIA requests are entitled to expedited processing because of the widespread media attention on these issues, but the government has yet to provide them a single document,? said attorney Raj Chatterjee of the law firm Morrison & Foerster. The FBI records are sought in part in response to concerns about the effects of possible racial and religious profiling and the potential harm such tactics may have on national security. The groups are also seeking details on whether FBI agents are recruiting Muslim and Arab children at Bay Area schools to serve in the agency's Junior Agent Program. ?Snitches have played a role in disrupting African resistance since enslavement,? said Georgia State University Professor Akinyele Umoja. Prof. Umoja was referring to paid agents who curry favor with oppressive forces, not tattle tales about run-of-the-mill street crime or illicit activity. ?Denmark Vesey's planned insurrection was stopped due to information provided to the slaveholders. Informants were present in the civil rights movement in the South. Movement forces assumed snitches were in their meetings. Wise movement leaders often confused their enemies by providing misinformation in public meetings. COINTELPRO (Counter Intelligence Program of the FBI to destroy Black leadership and movements) and Southern state documents are full of examples of misinformation provided by Movement leaders to confuse White supremacists and local, state and federal police,? he said. ?It is also revealed that the Honorable Elijah Muhammad couldn't sneeze without the enemy knowing. Snitches also played an important role in the demise of the Black Panther Party.? The list of Black groups and leaders targeted by government unfortunately goes on and on, he said. ?Informing on the movement is treason. A liberation movement cannot be successful if a culture of snitching is acceptable. Movements are only sustainable and victorious if we have a culture of resistance and self-reliance. One should wear a ?badge of shame' for informing on our organizations, leaders, and other sisters and brothers to our enemies,? Dr. Umoja continued. ?We also have to develop a culture of collectivism or communalism. If one wants forgiveness, a public apology should be made and restitution should be made to the individuals, organizations and families involved. People's lives and human rights were violated by the repression of the COINTELPRO and other U.S. government initiatives against our movement. ? Dr. Umoja also recommended that if a member of a community has an addiction or a financial or emotional problem, it should be shared with their community and organization. ?We are only as strong as our weakest link. If we leave brothers and sisters out there they are vulnerable for parasites who want to destroy the movement,? he said. Under COINTELPRO's directive in the 1960s and 1970s, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover was on the lookout for a ?Black Messiah? who could inspire diverse groups and unite the Black masses. The language was clear and so were its targets: H. Rap Brown (now Jamil Al Amin), Stokely Carmichael (who became Kwame Ture), the Black Panthers, the Nation of Islam and the Honorable Elijah Muhammad. ?The reason Jamil Al-Amin was transferred to the prison in Florence, Colo., if you recall, is because the Georgia inmates petitioned to make him their imam. An effective organizer?even within the prison population?and a charismatic leader who had also begun to exercise influence over the prison staff is something the government could not afford. So now he sits in solitary. The same for Dr. Mutula Shakur, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Max Sanford, Huey P. Newton. They know they have to do something with people like these,? said Dr. Umoja. But while the Panther Party and other nationalist groups were destroyed, one movement has been able to re-emerge and is the undeniable target of government surveillance: The Nation of Islam and the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan. With the Nation there is the combination of Islam, Pan Africanism, nationalism and self-reliance?all elements that pose a threat to a nation dependent upon its former slaves, said Dr. Umoja. ?Now Minister Farrakhan is here, who represents a blend of all of the elements: an effective organizer, charismatic, influential and has the genuine love of the people from all walks of life. You cannot be an effective leader without charisma. No one can deny that, he has that charisma that no one can control,? he said. ?Unfortunately, the mission of the Nation of Islam has been misunderstood by some in government but in other cases misunderstanding has been created, which has permitted, and it is well documented in history, the violation of our civil and constitutional rights through J. Edgar Hoover that continues down to the present time as revealed in December 2009 disclosures that there was Department of Homeland Security illegal surveillance of the Nation of Islam and that we were still a target of the U.S. government,? said Atty. Abdul Arif Muhammad, general counsel for the Nation of Islam. ?It would not be wise for us to not think such activity does not continue, especially in light of the Islamaphobia present in the United States and being stoked by the media and other forces in and outside of government to illegitimately distort the mission and work of the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam.? Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 863-9977 www.Freedomarchives.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From news at freedomarchives.org Tue Sep 21 11:52:25 2010 From: news at freedomarchives.org (Anti-Imperialist News) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 08:52:25 -0700 Subject: [News] Probes by FBI called improper Message-ID: Probes by FBI called improper By Jerry Markon Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, September 21, 2010; A1 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/20/AR2010092006335.html The FBI improperly investigated some left-leaning U.S. advocacy groups after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Justice Department said Monday, citing cases in which agents put activists on terrorist watch lists even though they were planning nonviolent civil disobedience. A report by Inspector General Glenn A. Fine absolved the FBI of the most serious allegation: that domestic groups were targeted purely for their activism against the Iraq war and other political activity, which would have violated their First Amendment rights. Civil liberties groups and congressional Democrats had accused the FBI of employing such tactics during George W. Bush's administration. But the report cited what it called "troubling" FBI practices in the Bush administration's monitoring of domestic groups between 2001 and 2006. In one instance, the report said, FBI officials falsely said an agent photographed antiwar demonstrators as part of a terrorism investigation, which led FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III to unintentionally give incorrect information about the incident to Congress. In another, agents investigated members of the environmental advocacy group Greenpeace over their protest activities "with little or no basis," the report said. Agents kept the case open for more than three years, even though no charges were filed, and put the activists on a terrorist watch list, it said. The groups that were monitored, which also include a Catholic organization that advocates for peace, compared the FBI's actions to questionable domestic spying tactics the bureau used against antiwar demonstrators and others in the 1960s under longtime director J. Edgar Hoover. "The use of McCarthyite tactics against PETA and other groups that speak out against cruelty to animals and exploitative corporate and government practices is un-American, unconstitutional, and against the interests of a healthy democracy,'' said a statement from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, an animal rights group that was among those monitored. Ken Wainstein, former head of the Justice Department's national security division, said the investigations of the groups reflect the FBI's post-Sept. 11 challenge of transforming into an intelligence organization able to detect and dismantle terrorist plots. "This isn't McCarthyism or the excesses of the 1960s,'' he said. "This is the Bureau developing the programs to be a fully functioning intelligence agency and trying not to step over the First Amendment lines in the process.'' FBI officials defended their tactics, saying they were trying to protect Americans. They noted that the express purpose of Fine's report was to determine whether agents targeted activists purely for their political beliefs. "After more than four years of investigation and an exhaustive review of hundreds of investigative decisions the FBI made after the September 11 attacks," said FBI spokesman Michael P. Kortan, the report "did not uncover even a single instance where the FBI targeted any group or any individual based on the exercise of a First Amendment right.'' He added that although Fine had "disagreed with a handful of the FBI's investigative determinations over the course of six years,'' the inspector general "has not recommended any significant modifications to the FBI's authority to investigate criminal conduct or national security threats.'' The FBI's efforts to balance its fight against domestic terrorism with respect for the First Amendment have long been controversial. Under Hoover's COINTELPRO program, halted in 1971, the bureau sought to monitor and disrupt leftist antiwar and civil rights groups by such tactics as infiltrating them with informants. Since Sept. 11, 2001, that balance has been tested further. Civil liberties groups have long accused the bureau of overreacting to the hijackings by improperly monitoring antiwar demonstrators and environmental groups. Fine's investigation began in 2006 after the American Civil Liberties Union released documents, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, that it said showed that the FBI was monitoring left-leaning groups. Michael German, an ACLU senior policy counsel and former FBI agent, said Fine's report "clearly shows that the FBI was improperly spying on people's First Amendment-protected activity, and that the FBI didn't have enough internal controls to prevent abuse.'' Fine's report says that in some cases, agents began investigations of people affiliated with activist groups for "factually weak" reasons. In others, the report said, the FBI extended probes "without adequate basis" and improperly kept information about activist groups in its files. Much of the report is about a 2002 antiwar protest sponsored by the Thomas Merton Center, a Pittsburgh-based organization dedicated to promoting peace. Mark Berry, a probationary FBI agent with little anti-terrorism experience, attended the rally and photographed demonstrators distributing leaflets. An internal FBI document said the bureau was investigating "Pittsburgh anti-war activity,'' the report said. After the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act request, FBI officials seeking to respond produced an internal "routing slip" saying that Berry was monitoring a local Islamic leader and that his attendance was part of a terrorism probe. Berry told Fine's investigators that the routing slip was false, and Fine concluded that it was an "after-the-fact reconstruction that was not corroborated by any witnesses or contemporaneous documents.'' Berry could not be located Monday night. Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 863-9977 www.Freedomarchives.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From news at freedomarchives.org Tue Sep 21 13:28:58 2010 From: news at freedomarchives.org (Anti-Imperialist News) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 10:28:58 -0700 Subject: [News] Next Tuesday: An Evening in Solidarity with Women of Haiti, SF Friends Meeting House, 7PM Message-ID: AN EVENING OF SOLIDARITY WITH WOMEN OF HAITI ?Like the palm tree, Haitian women bend in the storm but do not break? ? from a Haitian women?s song WHEN: Tuesday, September 28, 7-9PM WHERE: SF Friends (Quaker) Meeting House: 65-9th Street San Francisco, (btw Market & Mission Streets- Civic Ctr BART) (Please enter through north door - closest to Market St) Heard much about post-quake Haiti recently? What about the voices of Haitian women? A women?s delegation from SF WILPF and Haiti Action Committee recently visited Haiti. Their purpose was to hear directly from Haitian women about the impact of the Jan. 12 earthquake on their lives and to understand how they are responding. They met with hundreds of Haitian women and recorded their stories. Through slideshow and eyewitness reports, the delegation will report back on their findings. Learn about the remarkable women?s organizations at the grassroots level that are mobilizing to rebuild Haiti. What is life like for Haitian women, many living in refugee camps, seven months after the quake? How do women evaluate the international relief effort? What are their key demands, including the widespread call for the return of PSresident Aristide? SPEAKERS: Ayana Labossiere, Judith Mirkinson, Leslie Mullin $7-10 donation (no one turned away for lack of funds) Wheelchair accessible Sponsored by Women?s International League for Peace & Freedom and Haiti Action Committee This event is part of WILPF TALKS - an SF WILPF monthly discussion series focusing on the impact on women of war and militarism. For more information: 415-864-5166, email: wilpf-sf at hotmail.com or www.haitisolidarity.net Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 863-9977 www.Freedomarchives.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From news at freedomarchives.org Wed Sep 22 11:50:40 2010 From: news at freedomarchives.org (Anti-Imperialist News) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 08:50:40 -0700 Subject: [News] Israel Uses Vague Law to Make Meeting Another Arab a Crime Message-ID: http://www.counterpunch.org/cook09222010.html September 22, 2010 Israel Uses Vague Law to Make Meeting Another Arab a Crime Locking Up Activists By JONATHAN COOK A vague security offence of "contact with a foreign agent" is being used by Israel's secret police, the Shin Bet, to lock up Arab political activists in Israel without evidence that a crime has been committed, human rights lawyers alleged this week. The lawyers said the Shin Bet was exploiting the law to characterise innocent or accidental meetings between members of Israel's large Arab minority and Arab foreign nationals as criminal activity. The chances of such contacts have increased rapidly with advances in new technology and opportunities for Israel's Arab citizens to travel to the wider Arab world, said Hussein Abu Hussein, a lawyer who represents security detainees. The lawyers' criticisms come at a particularly sensitive moment, as Israel has been widely accused of hounding two prominent political activists. Both were arrested on the grounds that they spied for the Lebanese militant group Hizbollah. One, Omar Said, was released last week after a plea bargain in which the Shin Bet reduced a serious security charge of "aggravated espionage" to "contact with a foreign agent". The evidence it revealed suggested that Said had attended the meeting in Egypt unaware that his contact was a possible Hizbollah agent and that he had turned down an alleged offer to spy for the organisation. Amnesty International has termed the continuing prosecution of the other defendant, Ameer Makhoul, as "pure harassment". As he was freed, Said, from Kfar Kana, near Nazareth, accused Israel of persecuting activists whose politics it does not like. Abir Baker, a lawyer with the Adalah legal centre, said cases such as Said's were intended to have a "chilling effect" on Israel's Arab community, which comprises one-fifth of the population. She said his arrest should be seen in the context of efforts by Israel to limit the right of Arab citizens to strengthen cultural and political ties to the rest of the Arab world. Several of Israel's Arab political parties, including the one Said belongs to, have been trying to inform the Arab world about the minority's campaign for democratic reforms to end Israel's status as a Jewish state. A 2008 law removed the diplomatic immunity from Arab members of the Israeli parliament to visit Arab countries defined as enemy states. One MP, Said Nafaa, who is to be tried over a visit to Syria with a party of Druze clerics in 2007, faces charges of contact with a foreign agent for meetings he held with Syrian politicians. "There are laws to stop us from visiting countries classified as enemy states such as Syria and Lebanon, but Israel uses this particular offence to make us afraid to talk to any Arab national, whether at international conferences or online," said Baker. "Israel wants to make us invisible." Khaled Ghanayim, a law professor at Haifa University, said misuse of the offence of contact with a foreign agent had grown with the right wing's ascendance in Israel. "Paradoxically, the Soviet Union advanced a similar policy for decades to prevent Jews in the Eastern bloc from meeting Israeli Jews. Israel and the West denounced that policy as a violation of their human rights, but today Israel is doing the same to its Arab citizens." Abu Hussein said the offence was particularly hard to challenge because, uniquely in Israeli criminal law, the onus to prove that the meeting did not harm state security rested with the defendant, not the prosecution. The Shin Bet was unavailable for comment. But the agency is believed to be concerned that Hizbollah, which fired thousands of rockets into Israel during a month of hostilities in 2006, is trying to recruit spies among Israel's Arab community. According to the Shin Bet's website, Hizbollah is particularly keen to identify the sites of Israeli security facilities in the north that might be targeted in a future confrontation and gauge the Jewish public's mood. Gideon Ezra, a former deputy head of the Shin Bet and now a member of parliament, said: "The state of Israel does not seek to put people in jail, but to carry out proper investigations. There is always a gap between what is known at first and the final outcome." Baker, who is studying the use of the "contact" offence, said there was a clear pattern in which the Shin Bet started its investigation with a serious security violation, such as transferring information to the enemy, which carries a life sentence, in addition to the allegation of contact. "That way an impression is created with the public and the media that the suspect was harming state security." As the investigation proceeded, she said, the Shin Bet typically dropped the serious charge and sought a plea bargain on contact with a foreign agent. The charge carries a sentence of up to seven years in jail. Defendants, faced with secret evidence and limited rights as security prisoners, were under pressure to agree, Abu Hussein said. Baker said it was difficult to be sure exactly how often the law was being used but pointed to several notable recent cases. In 2005, Sheikh Raed Salah, the head of the main wing of the Islamic Movement in Israel, and Suleiman Aghbaria, mayor of the city of Umm al Fahm, served jail terms of 30 months and 46 months, respectively, after agreeing a plea bargain. The Shin Bet's case that the pair belonged to a terrorist organisation, Hamas, and supplied it with weapons, collapsed during the trial. In the most recent case, both Said and Makhoul claimed they were tortured while they were held without access to a lawyer. Ghanayim said it was notable that both men were publicly involved in activities to challenge Israeli policies. Makhoul is known to have angered the Shin Bet by leading demonstrations against Israel's attack on Gaza in winter 2008 and by heading calls for a boycott of Israel. In the past the Shin Bet has warned that it would use all the powers at its disposal to "thwart" political activities it regarded as a threat to the state's legitimacy. Baker said use of the law against contact with a foreign agent had begun shortly after the start of the second intifada in 2000 to prevent Arab citizens meeting Palestinians in the occupied territories. Last year, in a case that attracted wide attention in Israel, Rawi Sultani, a 24-year-old activist from Tira in central Israel, was sentenced to five and a half years after attending an international Arab summer camp in Morocco at which he was approached by a Hizbollah agent. Mr Sultani was originally accused of conspiring to assassinate Gabi Ashkenazi, Israel's chief of staff. The charge was dropped but he was convicted of giving information to the enemy by revealing that he had visited a gym used by Ashkenazi. Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His latest books are "Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (Pluto Press) and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair" (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net. Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 863-9977 www.Freedomarchives.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From news at freedomarchives.org Wed Sep 22 22:00:28 2010 From: news at freedomarchives.org (Anti-Imperialist News) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:00:28 -0700 Subject: [News] Ernest Withers reports went to COINTELPRO top command Message-ID: Ernest Withers? reports on Martin Luther King went to COINTELPRO command * September 22nd, 2010 8:32 pm ET * By Michael Richardson, COINTELPRO Examiner * http://www.examiner.com/cointelpro-in-national/ernest-withers-reports-on-martin-luther-king-went-to-cointelpro-command The revelation by the Memphis Commercial Appeal that acclaimed photographer Ernest Withers was an informant on the civil rights movement to the Memphis office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation has put COINTELPRO back in the news. Operation COINTELPRO was a vast, illegal and clandestine program ordered by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to ?disrupt? political activity that Hoover felt undesirable. Spanning a number of years and targeting thousands of individuals and groups nationwide, COINTELPRO came to dominate FBI priorities in the 1960?s as Hoover stepped up his own private war on American citizens engaged in political activity. Hoover felt the growing black power movement was America?s most serious domestic threat and targeted its leaders including Martin Luther King. Although King preached non-violence, King?s high profile made him a COINTELPRO target and the subject of close surveillance and counter-intelligence plots. Withers? reputation will forever be marred by his stint from 1968 to 1970 as a COINTELPRO informant and his new exposure as an extortionist and influence-peddler. As a state employee Withers pled guilty to extortion of $8,500 from a bar owner. Withers was also fired as a local policeman and narrowly escaped prosecution for attempting to arrange cash-for-freedom deals for prisoners. Withers? Beale Street photography studio put him in the center of Memphis black life and he became a human institution in the community. Working the nightclubs after dark and his photo studio by day, Withers dropped everything else when a civil rights event needed recording. Withers reported to the Memphis FBI agent in charge of local COINTELPRO duties, William Lawrence. There is no evidence that Withers was aware of the secret COINTELPRO mandate or that he talked with anyone else higher in the FBI chain of command. However, Withers? reports were studied closely at the highest level in Washington, D.C. Although J. Edgar Hoover commanded daily operations in FBI headquarters which he called the ?Seat of Government? and read many of the reports sent to him from around the nation, Hoover?s initials are absent from Withers? reports. Instead, Hoover relied on a directorate to make summaries and brief him on developments in cities and groups he was interested in. Two names that do appear on the secret COINTRELPRO reports from Memphis are William Sullivan and George Moore, who both show up on distribution lists and initialed or signed the reports indicating they had read and approved them. Sullivan, long the third in command of the FBI, was chief architect of COINTELPRO while Moore headed the ?Racial Intelligence? unit of COINTELPRO. Both men despised King, as did Hoover, and they followed information supplied by Withers closely. Hoover first ordered wiretaps and hidden microphones on King in the late 1950?s on the premise that King was a suspected Communist agent. Hoover later ended the bugging of King when he became concerned of exposure. Robert Kennedy, as Attorney General, ordered the next round of secret monitoring of King to keep tabs on the civil rights movement. Sullivan, on his own initiative, would order a third round of eavesdropping on King in the mid-1960?s for political intelligence. King?s ?I Have A Dream? speech outraged Sullivan who wrote to Hoover that King was ?demagogic?. Sullivan advised Hoover, ?We must mark [King] now, if we have not done so before, as the most dangerous Negro of the future in this Nation ..it may be unrealistic to limit ourselves as we have been doing to legalistic proofs or definitely conclusive evidence that would stand up in testimony in court or before Congressional Committees.? In December of 1963 Sullivan convened a headquarters meeting of various FBI offices about the investigation of King. Sullivan told the assembled agents that King was ?unfit? and declared, ?We must continue to keep close watch on King?s personal activities.? After King was named ?Man of the Year? by TIME magazine, Sullivan gave his own ?trespass? order and arranged for the installation of microphones in King?s hotel rooms. Sullivan began an aggressive bugging program sending FBI sound teams and ?black-bag? experts around the country as King traveled. Sullivan wrote a memo presaging the anonymous letter advising King to commit suicide he is also presumed to have authored. ?We will at the proper time when it can be done without embarrassment to the Bureau, expose King as an immoral opportunist who is not a sincere person but is exploiting the racial situation for his own personal gain.? During the time Withers was providing information to Lawrence, Moore and Sullivan were using the secret reports in their campaign against King--even after King?s 1968 assassination. Withers passed on information that he gleaned while attending King?s funeral. In January 1969, Moore sent Sullivan a memo warning of a move to make King?s birthday a national holiday. Moore urged Sullivan to have material ready from the hotel room tapes to play for the incoming Nixon administration in an effort to stop the new national holiday. Sullivan passed on Moore?s suggestion to Hoover and on January 23, 1969, just three days in after Nixon?s inauguration, Hoover sent the Attorney General designee, John Mitchell, a Top Secret memo. ?In view of this [national holiday plans] there is enclosed a document regarding the communist influence on King during his career and information regarding King?s highly immoral personal behavior. For your information, a copy of this document is also being furnished to the President.? Permission granted to reprint Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 863-9977 www.Freedomarchives.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From news at freedomarchives.org Thu Sep 23 11:36:50 2010 From: news at freedomarchives.org (Anti-Imperialist News) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 08:36:50 -0700 Subject: [News] UN Gaza aid probe - Israeli flotilla attack violated international law Message-ID: 'Israel flotilla raid was unlawful' UN Gaza aid probe says the raid of Israeli forces on flotilla was in violation of international law. Last Modified: 23 Sep 2010 09:44 GMT http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/09/2010922195831956543.html The UN Human Rights Council's fact-finding mission has accused Israeli forces of violating international law when they raided a Gaza-bound aid flotilla. The three UN-appointed human rights experts said in a report released on Wednesday that Israeli forces showed "incredible violence" during and after their raid on the aid flotilla that left eight Turkish activists and one Turkish-American killed. The UN probe said there was "clear evidence to support prosecutions" against Israel for "wilful killing" and torture committed when its troops stormed the aid flotilla last May. Israel's military response to the flotilla "betrayed an unacceptable level of brutality" and violated international law "including international humanitarian and human rights law." The three-member panel said. "The conduct of the Israeli military and other personnel towards the flotilla passengers was not only disproportionate to the occasion but demonstrated levels of totally unnecessary and incredible violence." The report is scheduled to be debated by the Human Rights Council on Monday. The report also rejected Israel's stance that its forces acted in self-defence when they raided the flotilla, arguing that even those who did not attempt to stop Israeli soldiers from boarding the aid ships "received injuries, including fatal injuries." "It is apparent that no effort was made to minimise injuries at certain states of the operation and that the use of live fire was done in an extensive and arbitrary manner. The circumstances of the killing of at least six of the passengers were in a manner consistent with an extra-legal, arbitrary and summary execution." Israel's reaction Israel rejected the report as "biased" and "one-sided." "The report... is as biased and as one sided as the body that has produced it," the statement said. "Israel... is of the opinion that the flotilla incident is amply and sufficiently investigated as it is. All additional dealing with this issue is superfluous and unproductive." Israel insisted that it acted in line with international law, arguing that it had the right to retaliate against ships attempting to breach its blockade of the impoverished Gaza Strip. However, the panel said that since Gaza was suffering from a humanitarian crisis on the day of the deadly raid, for this reason alone, Israel's blockade is unlawful and cannot be sustained in law. Hamas welcomed the report and told Al Jazeera that the findings show that Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories violates human rights. "More should now be done, the commander who led the raid should be taken to International Criminal Court." Hamas said. The fact-finding mission, chaired by Karl Hudson-Phillips, former judge of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, had travelled to Turkey, Jordan and Britain to interview witnesses and officials for the probe. Desmond de Silva, former chief prosecutor of the Sierra Leone War Crimes Tribunal, and Shanthi Dairiam, as Malaysian human rights expert, are the other members of the panel. Source: Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 863-9977 www.Freedomarchives.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From news at freedomarchives.org Thu Sep 23 12:41:18 2010 From: news at freedomarchives.org (Anti-Imperialist News) Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 09:41:18 -0700 Subject: [News] =?iso-8859-1?q?Iran=92s_President_=28Tries_to=29_Speak_Out?= Message-ID: Dr. Lawrence Davidson: Iran?s President (Tries to) Speak Out [] 23. Sep, 2010 http://www.intifada-palestine.com/2010/09/dr-lawrence-davidson-irans-president-tries-to-speak-out/ by Dr. Lawrence Davidson Iran?s president Ahmadinejad was at the United Nations on September 21, 2010 to address the Millennium Development Goals Summit. What he had to say was, as usual, a mixed bag of worthwhile insights and questionable assertions. We will get to some of them in a moment. But first something odd. As soon as the Iranian president took the podium and began speaking the audio feeds supporting the UN translators started to have ?technical? problems. It is a sign of the suspicious world we live in that few astute observers are ready to believe that explanation without further proof. On the other hand, very few media outlets even commented on the glitch. Al-Jazeera, however, did prosaically refer to the incident as ?Ahmadinejad lost in translation.? According to a written transcript of his speech, and apropos of the subject of the summit, the Iranian president stated that the global decision making bodies such as the UN Security Council, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and the like are unjustly monopolized by aggressive and hegemonic great powers. And, if you really want to know why poverty persists in the modern world you have to take a long and hard look at the avaricious economic policies of those same powers. Actually, he has a point on both scores. It would be easy to produce the evidence for these assertions but much harder to get anyone of authority to listen. Thus, the hall in which he was making his address (sans translation) was nearly empty and he got very little media coverage. Ahmadinejad might very well complain that he was ?talking to the wall.? This time, at least, the problem is with the wall and not the speaker. There are other claims, all substantially true, that the Iranian president may soon be making for the one hundredth time (he speaks to the General Assembly on Thursday the 23rd). He will probably tell the world body all or some of the following: 1. That Iran has no nuclear weapons program and there is no hard evidence to the contrary. 2. That his country is pursuing the development of a peaceful nuclear energy program which is legal under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to which it is a signatory. 3. That on September 6, 2010 the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verified, yet again, that no declared nuclear material in Iran has been diverted for military use. 4. That the total amount of Iran?s enriched nuclear stockpile is for domestic energy and medical isotope programs. 5. That all of this is safeguarded by the IAEA. 6. And, finally, that any recently observed ?lack of full cooperation? on Iran?s part is a product of persistent U.S. and European hectoring about the alleged insufficiency of the fairly good cooperation they have got. In other words, the West has created a self-fulfilling prophecy in this regard. If you continuously question a people?s character, don?t expect them to fully cooperate with you. Despite a policy of insisting that if Iran wants to ?come back into the international community? its government must prove a negative, there was this week a glimmer of reason coming out of Washington. President Obama publically stated http://english.farsnews.com/printable.php?/nn=8906301215that ?we don?t think that a war between Israel and Iran, or military options, would be the ideal way to solve this problem.? Given the American media distortions on the topic of a ?nuclear Iran,? President Obama ought to repeat this obvious, common sense fact every day of the week indefinitely. Getting back to Amadinejad, I think it is fair to say that the man does head a civilian controlled government that can be quite ruthless and any claims that his regime does not target peaceful protesters are false. On the other hand, it is equally as accurate to say that he is not the crazy person the Zionists and their allies make him out to be. For instance, he repeated his assertion that he is not anti-Semitic, although he certainly is anti-Zionist. Unfortunately, he does question the extent of the Holocaust and for various historical and political reasons that is enough to earn him the anti-Semitic label here in the West. But, while he is factually wrong about the Holocaust, his disavowal of anti-Semitism is believable for two reasons: one is that attacking the Zionist nature of the Israeli state, which is what the Iranian president does, is not the same as attacking Jews. Zionists may claim it is but they too are factually wrong. There are an increasing number of Jews worldwide who see Zionism as just a racist political ideology and absolutely not a stand-in for their Jewishness. The second point is the relatively prosperous and stable position of the 25,000 Iranian Jews. If Ahmadinejad was such a flaming anti-Semite, these people would not be in as good a shape as they are. The political hype in the U.S. over Iran is, in good part, a combined product of Zionist and neo-conservative political pressure, media irresponsibility, and periodic indiscretion on the part of the Iranian president?the latter unfortunately feeding the former. And, we can rely on Israel and its supporters to keep calling for the destruction of Iran?s nuclear program as some sort of litmus test for world peace. Israel?s Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, told Fox News recently that ?history will judge the [Obama] administration on whether Iran has nuclear weapons or not.? It is a red herring, Ehud. Go home, make a truly just peace with the Palestinians, and you will grow old safely and die in bed. Sensibly, President Obama seems to be backing away from all this hype. He knows that it represents the same formula worldview used against Iraq in the run up to the invasion of that country. He probably got pressured to replay it by Congressional supporters of Israel and Ron Emmanuel. It is a dangerous game to play, even for the sake of a president?s domestic politics. The Iraq invasion resulted in the death of over one million people. Who wants to do that again? Well, it appears that the Zionists and the neo-cons do! Let us hope that the Democrats do well in this November?s elections. If they do, we may see an Obama more insistent on real peace policies when it comes to places like Iran and Israel. Then he can call in the opposition (including his Democratic ?blue dogs?) and tell them that, if they want to reduce the world?s population, it would be easier and cheaper and quite a bit saner, to promote contraception rather than bloody war. Lawrence Davidson Department of History West Chester University West Chester, Pa 19383 USA Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 863-9977 www.Freedomarchives.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From news at freedomarchives.org Fri Sep 24 11:52:43 2010 From: news at freedomarchives.org (Anti-Imperialist News) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 08:52:43 -0700 Subject: [News] 2 Palestinians Killed; 6 Wounded By Israeli Forces This Week Message-ID: PCHR Weekly Report: 2 Palestinians Killed; 6 Wounded By Israeli Forces This Week author Friday September 24, 2010 10:45 author by Saed Bannoura - IMEMC News Report post http://www.imemc.org/article/59472 In its Weekly Report On Israeli Human Rights Violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory for the week of 16-22 September 2010, the Palestinian Center for Human Rights found that Israeli forces killed two Palestinians and wounded six civilians this week. According to the Center's findings, Israeli forces extra-judicially executed a Palestinian in Nour Shams refugee camp near Tulkarem. In addition, private Israeli security forces guarding Israeli settlements killed a Palestinian civilian and wounded two others in Silwan village in Jerusalem. Israeli forces continued to use force against peaceful protests in the West Bank. Two Palestinian children and two human rights defenders were wounded. Israeli forces arrested two Palestinian civilians and two human rights defenders. Israeli forces launched a number of air strikes against civilian targets in the Gaza Strip, destroying a store and a country house. Israeli attacks in the West Bank: Israeli forces conducted 37 incursions into Palestinian communities in the West Bank, during which they abducted 38 Palestinian civilians, including 7 children. During the reporting period, Israeli forces extra-judicially executed a Palestinian in Nour Shams refugee camp, east of Tulkarm. They also wounded two Palestinian children and two human rights defenders. Additionally, a guard of Israeli settlements killed a Palestinian civilian and wounded two others in Silwan village in East Jerusalem. On 17 September 2010, Israeli forces committed a new extrajudicial execution crime in Nour Shams refugee camp, east of Tulkarm. This crime claimed the life of Eyad Asa'ad Ahmed Abu Shilabaya, 38, an activist of Hamas movement. The Israeli military spokesman claimed that soldiers opened fire at Abu Shilabaya as they believed that he "was posing a threat to their lives." He stated that Abu Shilabaya who is "wanted", continued to walk towards the soldiers while putting his hands behind his back although the soldiers asked him to stop. According to the military spokesman's claims, the soldiers were afraid and opened fire accordingly. After checking the body of Abu Shilabaya, it was found out that he did not have any weapons. Investigations conducted by PCHR revealed that the crime was committed in a bedroom with a single door. Blood was just in front of the bed, approximately one meter far from the door. These findings refute the Israeli military spokesman's claims. Also this week, Israeli forces broke into a school in Hebron and arrested two school children. Israel has continued to take measures aimed at creating a Jewish demographic majority in Jerusalem. Israeli forces started to construct a new section of the annexation wall in Shu'fat refugee camp. Israeli troops stationed at military checkpoints and border crossings in the West Bank abducted at least 7 Palestinian civilians. On 18 September 2010, Israeli forces started to built concrete blocks at the entrances of Ras Khamis neighborhood and Shu'fat refugee camp, northeast of Jerusalem, as part of the process of the construction of a section of the annexation wall in the area, to completely separate it from Jerusalem and establish a new military post. A PCHR field worker reported that the concrete blocks are 12 meters high and extend over a 600-meter-long distance. The construction of this section of the wall will separate Shu'fat refugee camp, 'Anata village and Ras Khamis, Rash Shihada and al-Salam from the center of Jerusalem. As a result, at least 55,000 Palestinians will be separated from Jerusalem. Israeli attacks in the Gaza Strip: On Monday, September 20th, at approximately 06:30, Israeli gunboats stationed opposite to Beit Lahia beach in the northern Gaza Strip opened fire at Palestinian fishing boats. They also fired flash bombs over the area. No casualties were reported. Israel has continuously closed all border crossings to the Gaza Strip for over three years. The illegal Israeli-imposed closure of the Gaza Strip, which has steadily tightened since June 2007, has had a disastrous impact on the humanitarian and economic situation in the Gaza Strip. The illegal closure has caused not only a humanitarian crisis but a crisis of human rights and human dignity for the population of the Gaza Strip. Measures declared recently to ease the blockade are vague, purely cosmetic and fail to deal with the root causes of the crisis, which can only be addressed by an immediate and complete lifting of the closure, including lifting the travel ban into and out of the Gaza Strip and the ban on exports. PCHR is concerned that the new Israeli policy is simply shifting Gaza to another form of illegal blockade, one that may become internationally accepted and institutionalized. Palestinians in Gaza may no longer suffer from the same shortage of goods, but they will remain economically dependent and unable to care for themselves, and socially, culturally and academically isolated from the rest of the world. Israeli settlement activities: On 22 September 2010, a guard of Israeli settlements in Silwan village to the south of the old town of East Jerusalem shot dead Samer Mahmoud Sarhan, 32. The guard fired a number of bullet from his pistol at a number of Palestinians, killing Sarhan and wounding another two civilians. The Israeli police claimed that the guard collided with a burning garbage container that was placed in the streets by Palestinians. They further claimed that those people had thrown stones at the guard, so he fired from his pistol through his car's window. However, eyewitnesses refuted the claims, and emphasized that the guard got down out of the car and chased these people. He fired at them from 3 different places, even after those people had already left the street. On 19 September 2010, Israeli forces delivered 8 notices to Palestinian civilians ordering stopping the construction of a facility and a number of houses in Deir Ballout village, southwest of Slafit, claiming that they area being built without licenses. Also on 19 September 2010, a number of Israeli settlers from "Kharsina" settlement, east of Hebron, uprooted 70 grape trees belonging to 'Abdul Rahman Shareef Sultan in al-Bwaira area. On 20 September 2010, a number of Israeli settlers from "Ramat Gilad" settlement attacked Palestinian agricultural areas in Jainsafout village, east of Qalqilya. According to sources of the Municipality of Jainsafout village, Israeli settlers attacked a tract of agricultural land belonging to 'Abdul Hafiz Kamel 'Obaid, and started to cultivate olives. A number of Palestinian civilians protested, but the Israeli settlers claimed that they had purchased the land. When the owner learned about the attack, he arrived at his land, and the settlers then left it. On 22 September 2010, at least 60 armed Israeli settlers from "Jabal Aldayr" and 'Ein Harsha" settlements stormed a housing project in Western al-Mazara'a village, northwest of Ramallah, and station atop of a number of houses. They photographed the area. Israeli Annexation Wall: During the reporting period, Israeli forces used force against peaceful demonstrations organized by Palestinian civilians and international and Israeli human rights defenders in protest to the construction of the Wall and settlement activities. As a result, two Palestinian children and two human rights defenders were wounded. Dozens of civilians and human rights defenders also suffered from tear gas inhalation and others sustained bruises. Following the Friday Prayer on 17 September 2010, dozens of Palestinian civilians and international and Israeli human rights defenders organized a peaceful demonstration in protest to the construction of the Annexation Wall in Bil'ein village, west of Ramallah. They moved towards the annexation wall. Israeli troops stationed in the area fired rubber-coated metal bullets, sound bombs and tear gas canisters at the demonstrators. As a result, two Palestinian children and an Israeli human rights defender were wounded. A number of demonstrators also suffered from tear gas inhalation and others sustained bruises as they were beaten by Israeli troops. Also following the Friday Prayer on 17 September 2010, dozens of Palestinian civilians and international and human rights defenders organized a peaceful demonstration in Ne'lin village, west of Ramallah, in protest against the construction of the Annexation Wall. They clashed with Israeli troops positioned near the Wall. Israeli troops fired rubber-coated metal bullets, sound bombs and tear gas canisters at demonstrators. As a result, several demonstrators suffered from tear gas inhalation, and others sustained bruises. Also following the Friday Prayer on 17 September 2010, dozens of Palestinian civilians and international and Israeli human rights defenders organized a peaceful demonstration in Nabi Saleh village, northwest of Ramallah, in protest against land confiscations in the Wad al-Raya area between the villages of Nabi Saleh and Deir Nizam. When the demonstrators attempted to reach areas of land seized by Israeli settlers near "Halmish" settlement, Israeli troops fired rubber-coated metal bullets, sound bombs and tear gas canisters at them. As a result, 'Omar Saleh al-Tamimi, 22, sustained bruises. A number of demonstrators also suffered from tear gas inhalation. At approximately 11:30 on Saturday, 18 September 2010, dozens of Palestinian civilians and international human rights defenders organized a peaceful demonstration in Beit Ummar village, north of Hebron. They moved towards areas of Palestinian land, which are threatened of confiscation by Israeli forces, near "Karmi Tsur" settlement, south of the village. Israeli forces attacked and fired at the demonstrators. As a result, Anna, 32, a Swedish journalist, was injured by shrapnel from a sound bomb. Additionally, Mohammed 'Ayad 'Awadh, 48, a member of the Palestinian Solidarity Project, sustained bruises to the back and the left hand, and Shungua, 21, a Japanese human rights defender, sustained bruises to the back. Israeli forces also arrested Younis Mousa 'Arar, 24; Mousa Hussein Abu Hashem, 45; and two international human rights defenders: Ran, 24, a British citizen; and Maria Luis, 21, an American citizen. Recommendations to the international community: Due to the number and severity of Israeli human rights violations this week, the PCHR made a number of recommendations to the international community. Among these recommendations was the call for the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention to comply with their legal obligations detailed in Article 146 of the Convention to search for and prosecute those responsible for grave breaches, namely war crimes. Also, the PCHR calls for the immediate implementation of the Advisory Opinion issued by the International Court of Justice, which considers the construction of the Annexation Wall inside the West Bank illegal. For the full text of the report, click on the link below. Related Link(s): http://www.pchrgaza.org/portal/en/index.php?option=com_...d=183 Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 863-9977 www.Freedomarchives.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From news at freedomarchives.org Fri Sep 24 11:52:51 2010 From: news at freedomarchives.org (Anti-Imperialist News) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 08:52:51 -0700 Subject: [News] IAEA & Israel rejects resolution calling on Israel to join Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Message-ID: IAEA rejects Arab move over Israel UN watchdog rejects resolution calling on Israel to join Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2010/09/2010924132627742782.html Last Modified: 24 Sep 2010 14:43 GMT The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, has rejected an Arab-proposed resolution calling on Israel to join a global anti-atomic arms treaty. The general assembly of the 151-member IAEA blocked the resolution at its meeting in Vienna on Friday. Fifty-one member states voted against the resolution while 46 voted in favour and 23 abstained. Israel had warned the UN nuclear watchdog that an Arab-led push to target the Jewish state in a resolution could deal a "fatal blow" to future co-operation on boosting Middle East security. "Adopting this resolution will be a fatal blow to any hope for future co-operative efforts towards better regional security in the Middle East," Ehud Azoulay, Israel's IAEA envoy said, shortly before the vote. The delegate made the statement during a tense debate on the draft resolution, which called on Israel to join the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Arab worries Arab representatives said Israel's presumed nuclear arsenal threatens regional peace and stability. The Jewish state is the region's only country outside the NPT. The United States had urged Arab states to withdraw the non-binding resolution, saying it could derail broader efforts to ban such arms in the Middle East and also send a negative signal to the relaunched Israeli-Palestinian peace process. "It is...unfortunate that this resolution is being pursued at a time when peace talks in the Middle East are being restarted after a long delay," Glyn Davies, the US ambassador, said. "The divisiveness and confrontation caused by this resolution threatens these talks just as they are being rekindled," he told the assembly. Israel says it will not consider joining the NPT until there is comprehensive Middle East peace. It would have been forced to renounce nuclear weaponry if it had agreed to sign the pact. Ali Asghar Soltanieh, the Iranian chief delegate, whose country was among the most ardent backers of the resolution, claimed victory despite the motion's defeat, telling reporters the vote and surrounding discussion kept pressure on Israel, which is commonly considered to be the only Middle Eastern nation to posses nuclear weapons. Still, the result was disappointing to supporters of the resolution, who had hoped to build on the momentum of last year, when the IAEA assembly overrode Western objections to pass a similar resolution directly criticising Israel and its atomic programme for the first time in 18 years. Arab states say there cannot be peace in the Middle East until Israel gives up nuclear arms. Israel has never confirmed nor denied having atomic bombs, under a policy of ambiguity to deter its Arab and Islamic foes. Israel and the United States regard Iran as the Middle East's main proliferation threat, accusing it of seeking to develop atomic weapons in secret, a charge rejected by Tehran. Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 863-9977 www.Freedomarchives.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From news at freedomarchives.org Mon Sep 27 10:25:22 2010 From: news at freedomarchives.org (Anti-Imperialist News) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 07:25:22 -0700 Subject: [News] US Wants to Make It Easier to Wiretap the Internet Message-ID: September 27, 2010 U.S. Wants to Make It Easier to Wiretap the Internet http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/us/27wiretap.html?_r=1&emc=na&pagewanted=print By CHARLIE SAVAGE WASHINGTON ? Federal law enforcement and national security officials are preparing to seek sweeping new regulations for the Internet, arguing that their ability to wiretap criminal and terrorism suspects is ?going dark? as people increasingly communicate online instead of by telephone. Essentially, officials want Congress to require all services that enable communications ? including encrypted e-mail transmitters like BlackBerry, social networking Web sites like Facebook and software that allows direct ?peer to peer? messaging like Skype ? to be technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap order. The mandate would include being able to intercept and unscramble encrypted messages. The bill, which the Obama administration plans to submit to lawmakers next year, raises fresh questions about how to balance security needs with protecting privacy and fostering innovation. And because security services around the world face the same problem, it could set an example that is copied globally. James X. Dempsey, vice president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, an Internet policy group, said the proposal had ?huge implications? and challenged ?fundamental elements of the Internet revolution? ? including its decentralized design. ?They are really asking for the authority to redesign services that take advantage of the unique, and now pervasive, architecture of the Internet,? he said. ?They basically want to turn back the clock and make Internet services function the way that the telephone system used to function.? But law enforcement officials contend that imposing such a mandate is reasonable and necessary to prevent the erosion of their investigative powers. ?We?re talking about lawfully authorized intercepts,? said Valerie E. Caproni, general counsel for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. ?We?re not talking expanding authority. We?re talking about preserving our ability to execute our existing authority in order to protect the public safety and national security.? Investigators have been concerned for years that changing communications technology could damage their ability to conduct surveillance. In recent months, officials from the F.B.I., the Justice Department, the National Security Agency, the White House and other agencies have been meeting to develop a proposed solution. There is not yet agreement on important elements, like how to word statutory language defining who counts as a communications service provider, according to several officials familiar with the deliberations. But they want it to apply broadly, including to companies that operate from servers abroad, like Research in Motion, the Canadian maker of BlackBerry devices. In recent months, that company has come into conflict with the governments of Dubai and India over their inability to conduct surveillance of messages sent via its encrypted service. In the United States, phone and broadband networks are already required to have interception capabilities, under a 1994 law called the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act. It aimed to ensure that government surveillance abilities would remain intact during the evolution from a copper-wire phone system to digital networks and cellphones. Often, investigators can intercept communications at a switch operated by the network company. But sometimes ? like when the target uses a service that encrypts messages between his computer and its servers ? they must instead serve the order on a service provider to get unscrambled versions. Like phone companies, communication service providers are subject to wiretap orders. But the 1994 law does not apply to them. While some maintain interception capacities, others wait until they are served with orders to try to develop them. The F.B.I.?s operational technologies division spent $9.75 million last year helping communication companies ? including some subject to the 1994 law that had difficulties ? do so. And its 2010 budget included $9 million for a ?Going Dark Program? to bolster its electronic surveillance capabilities. Beyond such costs, Ms. Caproni said, F.B.I. efforts to help retrofit services have a major shortcoming: the process can delay their ability to wiretap a suspect for months. Moreover, some services encrypt messages between users, so that even the provider cannot unscramble them. There is no public data about how often court-approved surveillance is frustrated because of a service?s technical design. But as an example, one official said, an investigation into a drug cartel earlier this year was stymied because smugglers used peer-to-peer software, which is difficult to intercept because it is not routed through a central hub. Agents eventually installed surveillance equipment in a suspect?s office, but that tactic was ?risky,? the official said, and the delay ?prevented the interception of pertinent communications.? Moreover, according to several other officials, after the failed Times Square bombing in May, investigators discovered that the suspect, Faisal Shahzad, had been communicating with a service that lacked prebuilt interception capacity. If he had aroused suspicion beforehand, there would have been a delay before he could have been wiretapped. To counter such problems, officials are coalescing around several of the proposal?s likely requirements: ? Communications services that encrypt messages must have a way to unscramble them. ? Foreign-based providers that do business inside the United States must install a domestic office capable of performing intercepts. ? Developers of software that enables peer-to-peer communication must redesign their service to allow interception. Providers that failed to comply would face fines or some other penalty. But the proposal is likely to direct companies to come up with their own way to meet the mandates. Writing any statute in ?technologically neutral? terms would also help prevent it from becoming obsolete, officials said. Even with such a law, some gaps could remain. It is not clear how it could compel compliance by overseas services that do no domestic business, or from a ?freeware? application developed by volunteers. In their battle with Research in Motion, countries like Dubai have sought leverage by threatening to block BlackBerry data from their networks. But Ms. Caproni said the F.B.I. did not support filtering the Internet in the United States. Still, even a proposal that consists only of a legal mandate is likely to be controversial, said Michael A. Sussmann, a former Justice Department lawyer who advises communications providers. ?It would be an enormous change for newly covered companies,? he said. ?Implementation would be a huge technology and security headache, and the investigative burden and costs will shift to providers.? Several privacy and technology advocates argued that requiring interception capabilities would create holes that would inevitably be exploited by hackers. Steven M. Bellovin, a Columbia University computer science professor, pointed to an episode in Greece: In 2005, it was discovered that hackers had taken advantage of a legally mandated wiretap function to spy on top officials? phones, including the prime minister?s. ?I think it?s a disaster waiting to happen,? he said. ?If they start building in all these back doors, they will be exploited.? Susan Landau, a Radcliffe Institute of Advanced Study fellow and former Sun Microsystems engineer, argued that the proposal would raise costly impediments to innovation by small startups. ?Every engineer who is developing the wiretap system is an engineer who is not building in greater security, more features, or getting the product out faster,? she said. Moreover, providers of services featuring user-to-user encryption are likely to object to watering it down. Similarly, in the late 1990s, encryption makers fought off a proposal to require them to include a back door enabling wiretapping, arguing it would cripple their products in the global market. But law enforcement officials rejected such arguments. They said including an interception capability from the start was less likely to inadvertently create security holes than retrofitting it after receiving a wiretap order. They also noted that critics predicted that the 1994 law would impede cellphone innovation, but that technology continued to improve. And their envisioned decryption mandate is modest, they contended, because service providers ? not the government ? would hold the key. ?No one should be promising their customers that they will thumb their nose at a U.S. court order,? Ms. Caproni said. ?They can promise strong encryption. They just need to figure out how they can provide us plain text.? Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 863-9977 www.Freedomarchives.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From news at freedomarchives.org Mon Sep 27 10:33:46 2010 From: news at freedomarchives.org (Anti-Imperialist News) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 07:33:46 -0700 Subject: [News] SF - Tuesday - Protest FBI Raids on Antiwar movement Message-ID: United National Antiwar Committee http://www.nationalpeaceconference.org UNAC, P.O. Box 123, Delmar, NY 12054; Ph. 518-281-1968 or 518-227-6947 UNACpeace at gmail.com Media release/Press conference Local contacts: Jeff Mackler 510-268-9429; Bill Balderston: 510-436-5138: Blanca Miess?: 510-725-8875 U.S. Antiwar Movement Under Government Attack! Defend victims of nationwide FBI/government raids, seizures and subpoenas! Demonstrate: Tuesday, September 28, 5:00 pm Federal Bldg., 7th St. and Mission, San Francisco On the morning of Sept. 24, FBI agents armed with Grand Jury subpoenas raided the homes of several antiwar and social justice activists in Minnesota, Michigan and Illinois. As we write reports are coming in that FBI agents have been contacting other activists in Wisconsin, North Carolina and California. Among those subpoenaed and/or whose organizations are under attack are supporters of the United National Antiwar Committee (UNAC). They attended our founding July 23-25, 2010, Albany, New York founding national conference of 800 activists from 35 states. The UNAC conference approved a 28-point Action Plan culminating in bi-coastal San Francisco/New York mass demonstrations demanding that the U.S. government immediately withdraw of all U.S. troops, mercenaries and war contractors from Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Other conference approved demands were End U.S. aid to Israel military, economic and diplomatic. End U.S. support to the Israeli Occupation of Palestine and the siege of Gaza! Using the pretext of investigating "terrorism," and with "possibly providing material aid to terrorists," the FBI agents - 20 in the Twin Cities and 12 in Chicago - were armed with search and seizure warrants signed by U.S. Magistrate Judges and/or representatives of the U.S. Attorney's office. They seized computers, cell phones, political leaflets and other printed materials. In Minnesota agents worked for 12 hours confiscating material including 30 boxes of literature, photographs of Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X and pictures drawn by their children. The individuals targeted included leaders of organizations like the Minneapolis Antiwar Committee, whose office was raided, the Palestine Solidarity Group, the Colombia Action Network and the Freedom Road Socialist Organization. The activists were ordered to appear before Grand Juries in various cities investigating criminal activity and possible association with ?terrorist? organizations. The earliest subpoena dates were October 5 and 7. The FBI also has also served or harassed activists in North Carolina and Wisconsin as part of the same investigation. The government's subpoenas "commanded" the recipients to bring with them to the Grand Jury proceedings: (1) all pictures and videos relating to any trip to Colombia, Jordan, Syria, the Palestinian Territories, or Israel; (2) all items relating to any trip to Colombia, Jordan, Syria, the Palestinian Territories, or Israel; (3) all correspondence, including but not limited to emails and letters, with anyone residing in Colombia, Jordan, Syria, the Palestinian Territories, or Israel; (4) all records of any payment provided directly or indirectly to Hatem Abudayyeh, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) or the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC); (5) all records of any telephonic or electronic communications with anyone in Colombia, Jordan, Syria, the Palestinian Territories, or Israel; and (6) any item related to any support provided to any designated terrorist organization, including the PFLP or the FARC. All those subpoenaed have refused to discuss their political work and views with FBI agents, as is their right. They have publicly denounced these raids as an attempt by the government to intimidate and repress opposition to U.S. wars of intervention and occupation. The United National Antiwar Committee denounces the government?s raids, seizures and subpoena as an attack on the entire antiwar movement and all organizations seeking social justice and an end to U.S. wars of intervention around the world. We stand in full solidarity with all those who now face government persecution and possible imprisonment. The United National Antiwar Committee demands: Stop the repression against anti-war and international solidarity activists. Immediately return all confiscated materials: computers, cell phones, papers, documents, etc. End the Grand Jury proceedings and FBI raids against all anti-war activists. We call on all antiwar and social justice organization across the country to organize protest demonstrations on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, September 27, 28 or 29 at Federal Buildings or FBI offices. Demonstrations have already been called in the following cities: Minneapolis MN, Mon: 4:30, FBI Office Monday, 111 Washington Ave. S. Chicago, IL, Monday: 4:30 FBI Building, 2111 W. Roosevelt Rd. NYC, Tues. 4:30 to 6pm Federal Building, 26 Federal Plaza, Newark, NJ Tues 5 to 6pm Federal Building Broad Street Washington DC, Tues 4:30 ? 5:30 FBI Building 935 Pennsylvania Ave NW. Detroit MI Tuesday 4:30 McNamara Federal Building Buffalo, NY 4:30 at FBI Building - Corner of So. Elmwood Ave. & Niagara St. Durham NC on Monday, 12 noon Federal Building, 323 E Chapel Hill St Raleigh NC. Tuesday 9 am. Federal Building, 310 New Bern Ave Asheville, NC Tuesday Atlanta, GA, Tues Noon, FBI Building Gainesville, FL on Monday, 4:30 PM at FBI Building Salt Lake City, Utah, 9 AM on Monday at Federal Building Add your voice to denounce the attacks on antiwar and social justice activists. Call the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder at 202-353-1555 or write an email to: AskDOJ at usdoj.gov. Send copies of all communications to UNAC at the above email address. Affiliate your organization to UNAC now! Join our National Coordinating Committee of antiwar and social justice organizations across the county to immediately end all U.S. wars, interventions. Trillions for jobs, education and human needs not war! Joe Lombardo and Marilyn Levin, Co-coordinators, United National Antiwar Committee Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 863-9977 www.Freedomarchives.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From news at freedomarchives.org Mon Sep 27 14:22:51 2010 From: news at freedomarchives.org (Anti-Imperialist News) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 11:22:51 -0700 Subject: [News] PFLP suspends its participation in PLO Executive Committee to protest return to negotiations Message-ID: PFLP suspends its participation in PLO Executive Committee to protest return to negotiations http://www.pflp.ps/english/?q=pflp-suspends-its-participation-plo-executive-comm The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine announced in a press conference on September 25, 2010 that it was suspending its participation in the PLO Executive Committee in response to Abu Mazen's return to negotiations and the illegitimate "approval" of the EC for this dangerous action. At a press conference held in Ramallah led by Deputy General Secretary Comrade Abdel-Rahim Mallouh and Political Bureau members Comrades Khalida Jarrar and Omar Shehadeh, the Front warned of the serious consequences and repercussions of the policy of concessions and appeasement to the U.S. and Israel. The press conference issued a statement, as follows: A policy statement issued by the Central Committee of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine To the masses of our Palestinian people struggling in Palestine And the Diaspora... To the masses of our glorious Arab Nation... We make this statement today in light of our full national and historical responsibility and a high level of consciousness of the great risks to our people of current political developments on the Arab and Palestinian level. In light of the action of the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization to return to direct negotiations with the government of the Zionist entity under the auspices of U.S. imperialism, the Central Committee of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine convened an extraordinary meeting to discuss all of these developments, which determined the following: First: The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine has firmly adhered to a categorical rejection of Oslo since 1993, and warned early of its dangerous approach and its disastrous consequences for the Palestinian cause, the PLO program and charter, and the Palestinian national struggle. The decision to return to direct negotiations is one that has failed for nearly two decades now. It is an affront to the blood of our people shed in the Al-Aqsa Intifada 2000 and represents the persistence of the PLO leadership to continue the devastating Oslo path, despite its devastating effect on our people. This development places the Palestinian cause in the hands of U.S. imperialism and Zionism, holding it accountable to their dictates, which aim at the liquidation of the inalienable historic and national rights of our people, particularly the right of return for refugees, the right of self-determination, and the right of citizenship and presence on the land of Palestinians in the 1948 occupied areas of Palestine. The direct negotiations also help to break the growing international isolation of the Zionist entity, to protect its leaders from accountability and consequences of their crimes and slaughter, and to circumvent the growing international solidarity with our people and their rights. They provide a cover for the occupation practices and policies of settlement building, land confiscation, displacement, siege, detention, imprisonment and killing; further erode our Palestinian national position and national constants; and contribute to the deepening of the disastrous internal Palestinian division. Accordingly, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which has maintained and adhered to the PLO, and has been a part of every political turning point in the organization, and cherishes its history and potential as a great national movement baptized by the blood of martyrs, refuses to accept that the PLO shall be a cover for policies that destroy and undermine our national cause. Further, we reuse to accept that the PLO's institutions shall be turned into institutions devoid of independence, militancy, democracy, transparency, or legality. Therefore: The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine will suspend its participation in the meetings of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization. We knock on the walls of the tank in front of the masses of our people and our nation, warning of the serious consequences and repercussions of the policy of concessions and the return to direct negotiations under the U.S.-Israeli conditions, including the absence of the United Nations and its references and the imposition of the American-sponsored negotiating table as a substitute. With U.S. support, the Zionist state attempts to impose the requirement to recognize "Israel" as the "State of the Jewish people" upon the negotiating agenda as a part of the negotiations. We take this step in light of the continued settlement building, blockade and siege; and in light of the persistent selfish and exclusionary practices and policies that disregard collective Palestinian action and decision-making, and in light of the overwhelming popular rejection of the illegitimate decision to return to negotiations taken with only one-third of the membership of the Executive Committee. Second: The decision to return to the direct negotiations severely undermines the decisions of the Central Council. It is an abuse of the PLO and its representation of a national militant Palestinian identity and its place as a location for joint Palestinian work. Rather than holding to a national resolution to direct to the world, particularly in order to strengthen the official Arab position in order to serve the national struggle and its objectives, the Executive Committee rendered a decision that was made before it was even submitted. This decision took place at a meeting of the Executive Committee - the PLO's leading body - with a formal lack of quorum, and with the rejection of major forces. Third: The decision of the Popular Front to suspend its participation of the meetings of the Executive Committee does not mean that we are engaging in any parallel or alternative frameworks to the PLO as a national framework to encompass all of the Palestinian people in the homeland and in diaspora. The Front is not only against the use of the PLO and its institutions as empty shell structures to justify concessions; it also rejects any denial of the fact that the PLO is a great national achievement of our people and factions of the contemporary Palestinian revolution, and the product of many painful sacrifices. Just as it has in the past, the Popular Front will not cease in the present and the future to struggle to reform and rebuild the PLO on a national and democratic basis, including elections on the basis of proportional representation in Palestine and wherever possible in the diaspora. We reiterate the commitment of the March 2005 Cairo Declaration and the June 2006 National Accord document (the Prisoners' Document) to end the disastrous state of division, restore national unity, and strengthen the steadfastness of our people to confront the occupation and its practices on the ground. These are the central tasks of all Palestinians in the current national phase. Fourth: The Popular Front, while affirming that the PLO is the sole legitimate representative of our people wherever it is present, calls on the masses of our people, factions, political forces, community leaders and independent personalities to form and support the broadest popular movement to stop the negotiations and end the disastrous path of the Oslo accords. We call for the convening of a fully empowered international conference under the auspices of the United Nations and with international resolutions and legitimacy as its reference in order to implement Palestinian rights and compel the Zionist entity to implement UN resolutions, most notably UN Resolution 194, assuring the return of refugees to their homes from which they were displaced, as well as the dismantling of settlements and the removal of settlers. We call for hard work to restore national unity and develop a strategy for political action to uphold our national principles and bring an end to reliance on negotiations that have been demonstrated through painful experience to be futile at best and devastatingly dangerous at worst. Unity, steadfastness and resistance until victory! Glory to the martyrs, health to the wounded, freedom for the prisoners, and victory for our people! The General Central Committee Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine September 2010 Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 863-9977 www.Freedomarchives.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From news at freedomarchives.org Mon Sep 27 14:31:08 2010 From: news at freedomarchives.org (Anti-Imperialist News) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 11:31:08 -0700 Subject: [News] Settlement Activities Did Not Stop During Settlement Freeze Message-ID: Settlement Activities Did Not Stop During Settlement Freeze, Research Center Says author Monday September 27, 2010 08:34 author by Saed Bannoura - IMEMC & Agencies Report post http://www.imemc.org/article/59485 The Land and Research Center reported that Israel was ongoing with its settlement activities during the co-called temporary settlement freeze that officially expired by midnight Sunday. The Center said that Israel continued the work in more than 120 settlements and annexed large areas of Palestinian lands in the West Bank. It added that statistics revealed that settlement activities did not halt during the freeze, and that some 1,520 units were built or are currently under construction. Israel also prepared contracts for the construction of 2,066 units for settlements in addition to plans for construction of 37,679 units for settlers in the near future. The Center further stated that Israel annexed 5,906 dunams of Palestinian lands during the ?settlement freeze?, and uprooted 920 dunams of Palestinian farmlands and orchards. Also during the freeze, Israel demolished 280 homes and structures, and intends to demolish nearly 830 structures. Israel also prevented the paving of 10 new roads in several parts of the West Bank, while settlers occupied 13 homes and managed to pave 28 settler-only roads. In related news, Israeli media sources reported that Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has asked his ministers not to make any announcements or statements regarding the end of settlement freeze, and also asked settler leaders to cancel plans for celebrating the end of this freeze. The sources added that Israeli Member of Knesset of the Likud Party, Danny Dannon, stated that Monday will witness the placing of cornerstones for some 2,000 units in different West Bank settlements. The Likud Party is headed by Netanyahu. ? 1 Dunam equals 0.247 Acres Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 863-9977 www.Freedomarchives.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From news at freedomarchives.org Mon Sep 27 14:52:34 2010 From: news at freedomarchives.org (Anti-Imperialist News) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 11:52:34 -0700 Subject: [News] =?iso-8859-1?q?Colombia=3A_The_Significance_of_the_Killing?= =?iso-8859-1?q?_of_FARC_Leader_=93Mono_Jojoy=94?= Message-ID: Colombia: The Significance of the Killing of FARC Leader ?Mono Jojoy? Written by Garry Leech Sunday, 26 September 2010 15:02 [] http://colombiajournal.org/the-significance-of-the-killing-of-farc-leader-mono-jojoy.htm On September 23, a massive operation conducted by the Colombian military targeted a large encampment of guerrillas belonging to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) in eastern Colombia. The military action killed FARC commander and secretariat member Jorge Brice?o, also known by the nickname ?Mono Jojoy.? It is only the second time in more than 45 years of armed conflict that the government has killed a member of the guerrilla group?s seven-person secretariat?the previous instance being the assassination of Ra?l Reyes two-and-a-half years ago. But what will be the significance of the killing of Mono Jojoy? Not surprisingly, Colombian government officials quickly began trumpeting the importance of the successful military operation that involved 400 troops and more than 30 aircraft and helicopters. In reference to the killing of Mono Jojoy, Colombia?s President Juan Manuel Santos declared, ?It is the most resounding blow against the Farc in is entire history.? Meanwhile, Defense Minister Rodrigo Rivera, in reference to the fact that information provided by a FARC deserter led the military to Mono Jojoy?s hideout, stated, ?The Farc are falling apart from within.? Undoubtedly, the loss of a longtime leader such as Mono Jojoy will impact the FARC. The guerrilla commander joined the FARC in 1975 at 12 years of age and rose up through the ranks to command the rebel group?s largest bloc, which consists of some 40 percent of its fighters. Along the way he became one of the most respected of the FARC?s leaders among rank and file guerrillas. This respect was not simply a result of his military prowess which, along with his bloc?s extensive role in capturing soldiers and police as well as kidnapping civilians, led many to view him as the most ruthless of the FARC?s leaders. This respect was also due to the social and economic policies implemented under his command. In many ways, Mono Jojoy encompassed the complexities and contradictions evident in the FARC. He was a ruthless military tactician who in the late 1990s orchestrated a series of large-scale, successful attacks against military bases in eastern Colombia that caught the attention of Washington and led to a dramatically increased U.S. military intervention under Plan Colombia. At the same time, Mono Jojoy was responsible for extensive human rights violations including the kidnapping and killing of civilians in the regions under his command. Meanwhile, what has been frequently ignored in the reporting on Mono Jojoy is the fact that the bloc he commanded has implemented some of the FARC?s most progressive social and economic policies, which have benefited peasants in eastern Colombia. Over the past 20 years, many small towns in remote regions under Mono Jojoy?s control experienced significant infrastructure improvements as a result of the FARC?s public works programs. The FARC has built hundreds of miles of roads that connected dozens of communities to each other. In 2003, according to a Washington Post report, Efrain Salazar, the FARC?s public works director in Meta, had an annual budget of $1 million and paid civilians who worked for him a monthly salary of $125. And during the 1990s, Mono Jojoy used some of the FARC?s tax revenues to construct electrical grids in dozens of remote towns and villages long neglected by the national government. The guerrilla commander also oversaw agrarian reform projects such as the breaking up of ten large ranches in the southern part of Meta in 2002 and 2003 with the smaller properties then distributed to subsistence farmers. So, ultimately, what will be the impact of Mono Jojoy?s death? Colombian government officials and many analysts are already claiming that his demise constitutes the beginning of the end for the FARC. However, the same claims were made after the deaths of three members of the FARC?s secretariat?Manuel Marulanda, Ra?l Reyes and Iv?n R?os?in March 2008 and the guerrilla group not only survived those setbacks, it actually increased its military actions over the past year. In fact, the FARC has killed more than 50 Colombian soldiers and police over the past month in one of the bloodiest periods of combat in many years. While the death of Mono Jojoy will undoubtedly prove to be a setback for the FARC in the short term, particularly with regard to troop morale and desertion rates, it will probably not have a significant impact over the long term. After all, Mono Jojoy?s influence and role had already diminished in recent years due to health reasons, primarily diabetes. Furthermore, despite military setbacks, the FARC still has many experienced mid-level commanders who are capable of moving up the ranks?a fact made evident following the deaths of Marulanda, Reyes and R?os two-and-a-half years ago. Many analysts also argue?as they did following the deaths of Marulanda, Reyes and R?os?that the FARC?s new supreme commander Alfonso Cano is more likely to engage in negotiations as a result of the military setbacks. Their latest arguments are based on the premise that Cano is the guerrilla group?s long-time political leader and therefore will be more willing to engage in negotiations than military leaders such as Mono Jojoy. But the assumption that Cano is more open to negotiations is flawed, because the FARC commander is an ideologue who is actually less likely to compromise the rebel group?s political ideals. Interestingly, the principal obstacle to negotiations both before Mono Jojoy?s death and now is not the FARC, but the government. Previously, the Uribe administration refused to engage in negotiations with the FARC as long as the guerrillas demanded certain conditions, such as the establishment of a safe-haven in which to conduct talks. Last week, FARC commander Cano announced that the guerrilla group is willing ?to talk with the current government and find a political solution to the social and armed conflict in the country and without any kind of conditions.? But now it is the Santos government that is setting conditions in order to initiate peace talks, demanding that the FARC first cease its military attacks and kidnapping. The death of Mono Jojoy, like the killing of Reyes, illustrates the impact of U.S. military aid under Plan Colombia. The military operations that killed the two FARC commanders would not have been possible a decade ago. The Colombian military?s increased intelligence gathering capabilities along with its capacity to rapidly deploy well-trained combat units with U.S.-supplied helicopters has put the FARC on the defensive. The guerrilla group?s internal communications have been compromised and the ability of its leaders to remain undetected in remote jungle regions has been seriously restricted. Given the Colombian military?s vastly improved capabilities, it will not be a surprise if the FARC?s supreme commander Cano is its next battlefield trophy. After all, the military has deployed more than 4,000 soldiers with the sole mission of tracking down Cano. However, as has occurred in the past, new leaders will simply replace those killed and, given that most FARC units operate on the local level with little regular communication with the group?s secretariat, the death of Mono Jojoy, Cano or any other high-ranking commander will have little direct impact on the daily activities of the rank-and-file. Therefore, the FARC will likely continue its armed struggle in some form or another for many more years. Ultimately, a negotiated solution is the only way to bring peace to Colombia, but it would have to be a peace with social justice in order to truly end the violence. But the government, empowered by its military successes in recent years, has little desire to engage in any peace process that would affect the social and economic status quo by addressing the country?s gross inequalities and threatening the interests of the ruling elites. Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 863-9977 www.Freedomarchives.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From news at freedomarchives.org Mon Sep 27 17:33:02 2010 From: news at freedomarchives.org (Anti-Imperialist News) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 14:33:02 -0700 Subject: [News] New York Town Wants Local Muslims to Dig Up Their Cemetery Message-ID: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-reinbach/tiny-upstate-new-york-tow_b_739832.html Andrew Reinbach Journalist Posted: September 27, 2010 12:10 AM Tiny Upstate New York Town Wants Local Muslims to Dig Up Their Cemetery A town in upstate New York is trying to force a local Muslim religious community to dig up a small cemetery on its property and never bury anyone there again because it says it's illegal. "What we would not want is an unauthorized cemetery," says Bob McCarthy, town supervisor of the Delaware County town of Sidney, population 5,993. "We're taking care of a bunch of cemeteries, and they just came in and buried the bodies, and didn't go through...there's no funding there, it's not a standard kind of deal, and it's going to become a liability to the town." So what steps have the Muslims skipped? "I don't know what the exact law is," he says. Which is the problem; because whether or not the town government likes it, there are no laws in Sidney -- or New York state, for that matter -- covering cemeteries on private land -- religious cemeteries included. Plus, the town approved the cemetery in 2005. In any event, the cemetery, in the tiny hamlet of Sidney Center, was never a secret -- and couldn't have been: When the first body arrived in November, 2009, it had a 3-car escort from the Passaic, New Jersey Police Department, which necessarily told local authorities it was arriving. And there's certainly nothing illegal about it as far as the State Troopers are concerned. "We looked into the cemetery and it was determined what they were doing is lawful," says Captain James Barnes of the New York State Police, Troop "C," based in Sidney. This apparently isn't stopping the town board. Town attorney Joseph Ermeti wouldn't speak with us, but two other town officers indicated that in the absence of specific laws forbidding the cemetery, the town may try for a court order to force the Muslims to dig up the graves, based on a New York law against cemeteries on mortgaged land -- a technicality that covers the Muslim site, sitting in a hillside glade no larger than a Manhattan studio apartment. Shaykh Abdul Kerim al-Kibrisi, leader of the Sufi group -- called Osmanl Nak - 'bendi Hakkani Dergah -- says he just discovered the problem himself, and is correcting it -- his options being to either subdivide the property to exclude the cemetery, or to pay off the mortgage, which is under $200,000. In any event, whether a lawyer could convince a court that a 650-square foot cemetery on mortgaged property so offends the dignity of the law that it merits digging up bodies is the sort of fine distinction only lawyer could love. Likewise, there's the question of whether taking such a course is wise, since the town's actions could attract all sorts of unwelcome attention -- and possible civil rights lawsuits. "Islamophobia is something we're definitely aware of," says James Mulvany, Deputy Commissioner of the New York Division of Human Rights. Some interested parties are certainly looking at the religious bias angle -- in part because the board took its first official steps in July, just as the so-called "Terror Mosque" controversy was making headlines. "It's like Sherlock Holmes used to say," says Ibrahim Hooper, national communications director of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which has attracted its own Islamophobes. "When everything that's untrue is disproved, what's left must be true, and this is obviously bias." Feelings in Sidney about the cemetery are certainly strong. Asking a sampling of people in Sidney drew responses ranging from a deer-in-the-headlights stare followed by categorically denying knowing anything about it, to a strong stare and a curt, "mind your own business." In fairness to both the town and Sidney Center -- population 1,391, area 44 square miles -- the Shaykh, in his flowing robes, long beard and turban, must cut quite a figure to deeply traditional, rural Americans. And the fears that fasten on him and his followers aren't helped by the fact that in the past year or so, Muslims have been buying property near the center, spurring speculation that the ultimate plan is to create a town-within-a-town, governed by Sharia law. "I understand [those fears], but that's not our intention," says the Shaykh, who says no more than a half-dozen Muslims have bought property nearby. "They just want to participate [in the center], get away from the city, and live a clean life." And in fact that's exactly why the Shaykh and his 30-some followers moved to the 50-acre sheep farm in Sidney Center in 2002, his basic teachings being that since the world is what it is, people who want to live a spiritual life need to live apart from it -- not unlike Hasidic Jews or Amish people. But that hope hasn't stopped what the community considers harassment. Hans Hass, a spokesman for the group and member of the local EMS team, says that while most relations with their neighbors are civil, some trucks do blare their horns and throw rocks at the little farmhouse on Wheat Hill Road. Then, he says, there have been the "dozens" of visits by various police departments since 2002 -- including one in 2003, made by the FBI on a Muslim holy day -- the Eid-ul Fitr, which marks the end of Ramadan. That visit, says Capt. Barnes, was triggered by a report that a man wanted for murder was seen on the property. Hass says it was because of reports of "people with turbans." Captain Barnes says his men have made "only about a half-dozen" official visits to the center, although he concedes there may have been more, unofficial visits from members of his Troop as well as Delaware County and Sidney police. At the end of the day, the entire hoo-hah may be the result of third parties using the town as a cat's paw to attack the Shaykh and his followers. An email from one Salih Kalfaoglu and made available to me accuses the center of being a fraudulent, for-profit venture (an email to the address on the email requesting comment wasn't returned). Another email, from McCarthy to a third party, discussed telephone calls from someone claiming Tea Party affiliation who "...wanted to know how he could help with 'the Muslims.'" In that email, McCarthy says "all outward signs...indicate this is a for profit venture and should not receive any of the benefits afforded to a religion." None of this, says Hass, who was born in Maine, is what the Shaykh and his followers want. "We hope to put down our roots and live here as Americans." Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 863-9977 www.Freedomarchives.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From news at freedomarchives.org Mon Sep 27 17:57:29 2010 From: news at freedomarchives.org (Anti-Imperialist News) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 14:57:29 -0700 Subject: [News] Cuba - Continuation of Terrorist Plans from the US Message-ID: From: Grupo Estados Unidos ICAP Sent: Sep 24, 2010 9:05 AM To: laborexhange at aol.com Subject: FROM YOUR FRIENDS OF ICAP. Continuation of Terrorist Plans from the US The statements of Francisco Ch?vez Abarca and the plans against Venezuela expose the continuation of the terrorist actions against Cuba and raise new questions on the complicity of the CIA, CANF, Posada Carriles and the anti-Cuban members of Congress. As news were published that Luis Posada Carriles and various extremist organizations based in the US intend to carry on their plans of violent and paramilitary actions against Cuba, international terrorist Francisco Antonio Ch?vez Abarca was arrested in Venezuela last July 1st. He is one of the main links of the Central American connection employed in violent actions against Cuba by the notorious criminal, the Cuban American National Foundation (CANF) and some of its former members that currently make up the Council for the Liberation of Cuba (CLC). Posada Carriles, a fugitive of the Venezuelan legal system, remains active and devising anti-Cuban schemes inside and out of the US territory, collecting debts and favors from politicians, officials and local or Central American agents as if he did not remember, mind or care about the hearing to set the date of the trial -or mock trial-he should face early next year, under a minor migratory charge. Cuba, that has never permitted -and never will-the use of its territory for planning, funding or executing terrorist actions against any other state, has watched for over five decades how its neighbor to the North, and particularly Miami city, has provided safe haven to notorious terrorists, from before and after the triumph of the Revolution; funds are raised and provided, and bank accounts operated to finance their actions and those who sponsor, plan and carry out criminal actions against our country, many of them formerly or currently in the CIA and FBI payrolls, are allowed to use the territory. Is terrorism no longer fashionable? As a ?guest of honor? of the terrorist organization Alpha ?66 Annual Congress, held on February 27-28, 2010, Posada proposed to take up the plans of violent and paramilitary actions against Cuba. Although the leaders of the group indicated that as part of a strategy they should pretend to transform into a political, civilian and peaceful party, they have ratified that terrorism is their main line of action and instrument to destroy the Revolution. Likewise, they recommended raising funds for purchasing new boats and equipping them with machine guns either to land in Cuba or to attack our coasts. Coincidentally, on March 22, a few days after that congress, the residence of the Cuban ambassador in Guatemala was attacked with explosive bullets shot with grenade launchers causing material damages. In this context, Congressman Lincoln D?az-Balart makes news again. He is the number one cheerleader of the worst actions against our people, from the promotion in Capitol Hill of a military aggression on Cuba and the assassination of the Commander in Chief, to the kidnapping of the child Eli?n Gonz?lez or the encouragement of hunger strikes as a method of struggle of the mercenaries. About to relinquish his legislative position, D?az-Balart re-launched at the end of May 2010 the terrorist organization known as La Rosa Blanca, created by his father a few days after the revolutionary victory, and of which he now claims to be President, with the objective of becoming the main boss of the Miami Mafia. La Rosa Blanca was the first counterrevolutionary organization established in the US by henchmen of Fulgencio Batista?s dictatorship who fled Cuba running away from their abuses and crimes. As of 1959, it bonded with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Dominican dictator Rafael Le?nidas Trujillo to organize an uprising in the Escambray Mountains. It is remembered for burning down schools, farmers? houses, sugarcane fields and textile factories wounding and maiming a number of people and causing large economic damage. Why is a US Congressman reactivating such an organization in the 21st century? What for? D?az-Balart?s new chicanery can?t obscure his intention to receive and channel part of the funds worth millions allocated by the US government for subversion, a booty they all want seize, including other notorious terrorists like Roberto Mart?n P?rez and his fellow descendants of torturers under Batista?s dictatorship who also took part in the re-founding of La Rosa Blanca. His colleague Ileana Ros-Lethinen, who won the nickname of ?the Ferocious She-Wolf? for her shameful role in the kidnapping of Eli?n Gonz?lez, is accountable for having done more than anyone else during her 1988 political campaign for the release of Orlando Bosch, a close friend of Enrique Ros, the legislator?s father. Bosch and Posada Carriles were the masterminds behind the action against a Cuban airliner that took the lives of 73 people. In 1991, under the Administration of George Bush, senior, Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lethinen interceded with the President to have three US Air Force type 0-2 planes ?the military version of the Cessna used in exploration missions-delivered to the Brothers to the Rescue group headed by Jos? Basulto, a Playa Giron ex-mercenary, a terrorist and CIA agent. On July 19, 1992, as the air operations started, the press for the first time published pictures of the aircraft handed over to that counterrevolutionary group, with the USAF (US Air Force) insignia clearly visible in a report by the editor of the Miami Herald, who made a flight with them. Incited by members of Congress Ileana Ros and Lincoln D?az-Balart as well as by other counterrevolutionary organizations in Miami, Brothers to the Rescue staged provocations on Cuban territory to damage the favorable process of talks initiated by the United States and Cuba after the Migratory Accords of 1994 and 1995. Sponsored by the Miami Mafia, this counterrevolutionary group concentrated every effort in provoking an incident and violated Cuban airspace 25 times in 20 months, including flights over Havana City dropping various objects and leading to the events of February 24, 1996 and the downing of the aircraft. Again, this provocation strained the Cuban-American relations and encouraged the adoption of the Helms-Burton Act, whose content makes it more difficult to find solutions in the future to the two countries feud, as it turned into law all of the measures related to the US economic, commercial and financial blockade. In 2008, Ileana Ros headed another effort, this time for the presidential pardon of terrorist Eduardo Arocena, the intellectual author of the murder of United Nations Cuban diplomat Felix Garc?a Rodr?guez in 1980 and the bomb blasts in US public places. More recently, Ros-Lethinen has played a major role raising funds to pay for Posada Carriles defense attorneys. ?The CANF goals are my own,? she said. This was her early commitment in 1989 with the terrorist organization that put up her candidacy and used all of its economic and political power to ensure her a seat in the US Congress. ?I approve the possibility of someone murdering Fidel Castro,? she said to a British BBC documentary maker in March 2006, while she sat peacefully in her Washington office. Various analysts have addressed the concern and expectations in the US arising from the arrest of Ch?vez Abarca, particularly among members of Congress and officials whose political careers are very closely linked to Posada, the CIA and CANF. There are rumors that some of the most anxious are anti-Cuban New Jersey Congressmen Bob Men?ndez and Albio Sires. The former has usually sponsored terrorists, from the days when his ?adviser? for the community was Alfredo Chumaceiro Anillo who, on July 24, 1976, tried to blow up the Lincoln Center Theater during the performance of a troupe of Cuban artists. Men?ndez was a close friend and son-in-law of the late CANF director Arnaldo Monz?n Plasencia, who not only made donations to his election campaigns but also contributed $25,000 to partly pay for the terrorist actions of 1997. His personal assistant for the planning and murder of said Cuban diplomat was Jos? Manuel Alvarez, a.k.a. ?The Bear.? Others involved in that assassination were the convict Arocena, ex chieftain of Omega 7, and hired assassin Pedro Rem?n Rodr?guez who shot our official. This crime, as many others, is still unpunished. Another revealing link is attorney Guillermo Hern?ndez, one of the most active among Men?ndez?s consultants. He is now acting as an independent council to Posada Carriles to prevent his extradition to Venezuela and to help him face other charges that might be brought against him. One of Congressman Albio Sires? closest staff is Angel Manuel Alfonso Alem?n, a.k.a. ?La Cota?, a member of the terrorist commando detained in Puerto Rico in 1997 on board a CANF vessel on its way to Margarita Island, Venezuela, with the intention of murdering Commander in Chief Fidel Castro Ruz, with high power rifles, during the 7th Ibero-American Summit of Heads of State. Alfonso Alem?n is one of his main contacts with Posada Carriles and the Miami Mafia. It doesn?t come as a surprise either that the notorious Cuban American National Foundation (CANF), which for a long time sponsored a great number of terrorist groups bent on damaging our interests, both inside and outside of the national territory, is now offering the public -just like the others- an image of moderation, while it funds and supplies resources for the provocative actions of the so-called ?Ladies in White? and tries to promote domestic discontent, which they pay for with their own money and that allocated by US entities. Targeting the Venezuelan elections If terrorism was no longer fashionable, what was the purpose of Ch?vez Abarca?s trip to Venezuela? What was he doing during his suspicious movements around Central America? Who are behind his actions? What have the US officials done to prevent them from bringing their terrorist plans to fruition in Miami, El Salvador, Guatemala or Cuba? How effective were the measures adopted by the previous Salvadoran government to restrain their freedom to kill? The detainee has already admitted the destabilizing plans he would have carried out in that sister nation, attempting to kill leaders of the Bolivarian process or hurt their image in light of the forthcoming elections on September 26. Ch?vez Abarca has said that it was his purpose ?to burn tires, promote street disturbances, and attack a political party to blame the other.? He has revealed that one of the most important of Posada Carriles current plans is to try to sink ships taking oil from Venezuela to Havana. He also said that CANF has destined nearly $100 million to plans against Venezuela, as it feels that the South American country is the ?financial backbone? of Cuba, Ecuador, Bolivia and Guatemala. According to his statements, at the end of September 2005 they had plans to murder President Hugo Ch?vez. To that end, Posada instructed to use a .50 Barret rifle. Ever since that mercenary left prison on September 2007, after serving a sentence for trafficking in stolen cars, he started working in coordination with Posada to act violently against Cuba and other ALBA nations, including attempts on the life of President Ch?vez in exchange for money. At the time of his detention, and in order to ensure such objectives, he had instructions from his bosses in Florida to undertake intelligence actions in Venezuelan territory leading to the creation of the necessary logistics to implement covert operations. This mercenary, who has operated with Posada?s support, had taken refuge in Costa Rica, Guatemala and El Salvador. During the preliminary investigation into the case, the detainee has admitted that he was recruited as a mercenary and trained by Posada Carriles himself, who gave him firsthand instructions and paid $2,000 for every bomb blast in Cuba. He received the instructions during meetings in hotels and other places in El Salvador, Costa Rica and Guatemala where he met the terrorists of the Cuban American National Foundation (CANF) Arnaldo Monz?n Plasencia, Pedro Rem?n Rodr?guez, Guillermo Novo Sampol and Gaspar Jim?nez Escobedo. ?All of them clearly said that they belong to the Foundation and that Posada is a member of CANF in Miami,? said Ch?vez Abarca. With the acquiescence of CIA and friendly presidents He added that Posada boasted of asking for CIA consent every time he was to carry out one of his violent actions against Cuba, and that on one occasion he had said that the man who had interrupted the conversation was a CIA officer, his handler, who had called him on the phone. He also said that it was easy for him to evade the very few inquiries into his actions conducted by the FBI and the State Intelligence Office in El Salvador. As to Posada?s personal connections in El Salvador, he said that he had excellent relations with almost every rightwing president before the current government. He mentioned Calder?n Sol, Cristiani and Francisco Flores, with whom he used to go fishing. He also mentioned his friend Rodrigo Avila who was police Commissioner twice. ?They all visited the Foundation people in Miami,? he added. Ch?vez Abarca related that in 1997, when the Cuban TV broadcast a program showing Salvadoran terrorist Ra?l Ernesto Cruz Le?n exposing his connection to Posada Carriles and CANF, the former instructed him to kill the members of the man?s family; thus he now fears for the fate of his wife and children. Ch?vez Abarca not only recruited and trained other Central American mercenaries previously arrested in Cuba -one Salvadoran and three Guatemalans-but he also set up bombs at the Ach? disco and in the 15th floor of the Meli? Coh?ba hotel, on April 12 and 30, 1997, respectively, and another one at the Comodoro hotel, as an International Chess Tournament was taking place with over 40 children. Some of these children could have been killed as they unknowingly played with the bag where the explosive device was camouflaged. The bomb detected on the eve of May 1st, 1997, in the 15th floor of the Meli? Coh?ba hotel contained 1.5 kilograms of the highly-destructive military plastic explosive C-4, capable of razing buildings, bridges and vessels. In that period, the terrorist ring led by Posada Carriles and the CANF brought into the country over 30 explosive devices -18 of them in less than a year-11 of which blew up in various tourist facilities, including the one that caused the death of young Italian tourist Fabio Di Celmo, injuries to others and large material damage. Still, there could have been thousands of fatalities if they had materialized plans on usually crowded recreational and tourist centers like the Tropicana cabaret, discoth?ques, hotels and monuments, all of them frustrated by the Cuban Sate Security with the people?s collaboration. The CANF and those that from the US government incited and permitted this kind of actions had some obvious objectives: to build the perception that these actions had been executed by domestic opposition groups; to trigger panic and instability; to deal a strong blow to tourism; and, to make the national economy succumb to chaos. Between 1990 and the first years of the current decade, coinciding with these violent actions, the Miami Mafia implemented more than 25 terrorist actions in the US territory, which included bomb blasts, aggressions with fire weapons, verbal threats and provocations against Cuban interests, immigrants, travel agencies, personalities and organizations supportive of Cuba, and even death threats against President William Clinton and his Secretary of Justice Janet Reno for their decision to return the child Eli?n Gonz?lez. Additionally, throughout this decade we had to tackle plans to assassinate the Commander in Chief in practically every Ibero-American Summit held in various capitals and during his travels overseas, as proven by Posada?s and his henchmen?s capture in fraganti in Panama, where in order to murder him they were willing to cause a genocide killing hundreds of university students and other participants in a function chaired by comrade Fidel. Have such intentions left the minds of Posada Carriles and the bitter enemies of the Revolution that still hold seats in the US Congress? Will the current US Administration be able to curb the impetus and ambitions of the freeloaders and re-founders of old murderous organizations in the US territory? Will the complex US legal system ever put an end to the impunity of Miami, already in its 51st year, and do justice in the case of our Five Heroes who have spent more than 12 years enduring a cruel imprisonment? Will there be an end to the reproduction of mercenaries when the threat of the coups is a reality in the region as tangible as weapon-trafficking, drug-trafficking and the proliferation of all sorts of gangs? Although unjustly and inexplicably included in the list of state sponsors of terrorism, Cuba has given plenty of evidence to the US that it fights that scourge seriously and steadily. Despite the state terrorism that has been Washington?s official policy through five decades, there have been valuable bilateral exchanges of information on this issue, from the Cuban alert on a plan to murder President Ronald Reagan in 1984 to Posada Carriles? intentions to revisit in 1998 an action similar to the Barbados crime, this time against airlines operating between Central America and Cuba. At that time, June 16-17, 1998, talks were held with an FBI delegation which visited Havana and its airport facilities, received firsthand information of the documents available on plans, evidence, and personal information on the terrorists; their exact addresses and connections in the US and Central America; their modus operandi and false names used in their immigration documents; the places where they hid the boats for their actions; explosives and devices seized or the remains of those that exploded. Impunity and injustice as a response The US delegation took back home almost ten dossiers, hundreds of pages of stunning and irrefutable evidence, in addition to those discussed with them during a number of hours of exchanges with chiefs and experts of the Ministry of the Interior. Before they left, the FBI officer heading the mission and the chief of the US Interests Section in Cuba promised to respond within 15 days on the results of their inquiries. Twelve years later, the only response is the impunity of the culprits of those repulsive actions who walk free and even march through the streets of the United States, and the injustice of keeping in prison five young anti-terrorist fighters who contributed to the detection of and timely alert on such plans. Their only ?crime? is having prevented the loss of more human lives and larger material damage. The first result of those talks was the arrest of our comrades and the sudden stampede of the perpetrators of such crimes. Cuba has described impunity and double-standard as unacceptable in the fight on terrorism, and has reiterated its commitment to the struggle against such actions. Our country condemns every terrorist action, method and practice in every form and expression wherever they are committed, no matter by whom or against whom, and regardless of motivation. This has just been ratified at the UN General Assembly where we have also denounced the most abominable State terrorism of which we have been victims for over half a century. The current US government has inherited a gloomy and dangerous history with a combination of intelligence services and unscrupulous officers; terrorist organizations and notorious criminals and mercenaries; rigged trials and investigations; corrupted detectives, prosecutors, judges, members of Congress and former government officials. Washington has enough information to unearth the hidden truths that the courts need to do justice in the case of Posada Carriles and a number of other terrorists who walk free in the US; indispensable elements to clarify and put an end, once and for all, to their impunity and the injustice committed with our five compatriots. The world needs the truth to prevail. It?s in the hands of the current US Administration, its intelligence services and legal authorities to declassify and release all the necessary documents to expose and punish the culprits, and to prevent new terrorist actions against Cuba, Venezuela and other member countries of ALBA, which are still the targets of this scourge. Such effort cannot underestimate or ignore the revelations made by detainee Ch?vez Abarca concerning the plans against the forthcoming elections in Venezuela; the involvement of Miami terrorists in the coup d??tat dealt in that fraternal nation and in Honduras as the investigations show or the new plots against democratic governments in Central America, mentioned by the detainee that give rise to questions on possible connections of members of the extreme right, the CIA and the Mafia in Florida. Punishing Posada Carriles is only as fair and necessary as releasing the Cuban Five heroes, that is, if Washington wants to be consistent with its alleged commitment to the anti-terrorist struggle. Cuba has plenty of reasons to defend itself and to continue in the struggle for justice and against terrorism. The 3,478 dead and 2099 compatriots physically disabled by State terrorism and the continuation of the plans of its main authors and promoters reaffirm our determination not to give in to such threats. Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 863-9977 www.Freedomarchives.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From news at freedomarchives.org Tue Sep 28 10:17:49 2010 From: news at freedomarchives.org (Anti-Imperialist News) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 07:17:49 -0700 Subject: [News] Israel warships intercept Gaza aid boat Message-ID: Israel warships intercept Gaza aid boat http://www.presstv.ir/detail/144313.html Tue Sep 28, 2010 9:40AM Israeli warships have intercepted a Jewish aid boat bound for the blockaded Gaza Strip, forcefully diverting the aid vessel to the Israeli port of Ashdod. "Ten Israeli warships forced the boat to head for (the Israeli port) of Ashdod by force, but without raiding the ship," Amjad al-Shawa, a Gaza-based organizer told AFP. "They surrendered because they were surrounded. They had no choice," he further explained. The British-flagged aid vessel Irene was carrying seven Jewish activists from Israel, Britain, Germany and the United States, and two journalists, one of whom is an Israeli. Earlier, Yonatan Shapira, one of the Israeli activists on board, said the navy had contacted the boat and ordered the crew to change course. "They said we were approaching an area under naval blockade and told us to change course," Shapira told AFP by satellite telephone, saying the boat was about 20 miles from the Gaza coast. The Israeli forces also warned that the passengers and crew would be held legally liable if they insisted on heading to Gaza, especially those with Israeli nationality. The Israeli army did not immediately comment on the report and declined to confirm that contact had been made with the boat. On May 31, Israeli navy commandos killed nine Turkish activists onboard a civilian aid convoy while it was in international waters. A report by the UN Human Rights Council said the attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla "constituted grave violations of human rights law and international humanitarian law." The UN probe also termed as 'unlawful' the continuation of the blockade that has caused great physical and mental harm to the Gaza residents. MRS/HRF ********************************************************** Jewish Boat to Gaza boarded by Israeli forces and taken toward Ashdod port For immediate release 28 September, 2010 Jewish Boat to Gaza boarded by Israeli forces and taken toward Ashdod port The Irene, a boat carrying nine passengers and aid for Gaza's population has been taken over by the Israeli navy and denied access to Gaza. The boat is flying a British flag and its passengers include citizens of the US, the UK, Germany and Israel. Two journalists are also on board. Last contact with the boat's captain, Glyn Secker, was at 0937 GMT, when their path had been cut off by a Destroyer. Recent reports from other news sources indicated that the boat has been surrounded and boarded. At this point they were less than 20 miles from Gaza's shore. Since then all phones went dead. The occupied Gaza Strip's territorial waters end 12 nautical miles from shore, but the Israeli blockade is enforced at 20 miles from shore. Israeli attorney Smadar Ben Natan who is representing the passengers has asked to see her clients immediately. Local group Physicians for Human Rights-Israel has asked for permission to send an independent doctor to visit the passengers immediately, after hearing from organizers that at least one passenger suffers from serious chronic health problems and is in need of medical care. Speaking from London, a member of the organizing group, Richard Kuper of Jews for Justice for Palestinians, has condemned the Israeli army's apparent action and said that this boat and its fate are a symbol of the chances for peace in the region. The way it is being treated by Israeli authorities indicates that they have no real intentions of reaching peace, he said. He called for worldwide support for the boat and its message of protest against the siege of Gaza and the occupation. European Jews for a Just Peace, Jews for Justice for Palestinians (UK), Juedische Stimme fuer einen gerechten Frieden in Nahost (Germany), American Jews for a Just Peace (USA), Jewish Voice for Peace (USA), Jews Against the Occupation Sydney. Visit www.jewishboattogaza.org and join us on Facebook and Twitter Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 863-9977 www.Freedomarchives.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From news at freedomarchives.org Tue Sep 28 10:39:23 2010 From: news at freedomarchives.org (Anti-Imperialist News) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 07:39:23 -0700 Subject: [News] =?iso-8859-1?q?Fidel_-_What_They_Want_is_Venezuela=92s_Oil?= Message-ID: What They Want is Venezuela?s Oil ---------- By Fidel Castro http://www.zcommunications.org/what-they-want-is-venezuela-s-oil-by-fidel-castro Tuesday, September 28, 2010 In his latest reflection, Cuban Revolution leader Fidel Castro referred to the outcomes of parliamentary elections in Venezuela. Today, the Bolivarian Revolution has the Executive Power, a large majority in the parliament and a party capable of mobilizing millions of combatants in favour of socialism, he also pointed out. Yesterday, I wrote about what I would do if I were Venezuelan. I explained that it is the poor people who suffer the most from natural catastrophes and I gave the reasons why. Later I added: ? where imperialism rules and the opportunistic oligarchy receive the greater portion of the national goods and services, the masses have nothing to gain or lose. The empire doesn?t give a damn about the elections in the United States, even during presidential elections, less than 50 percent of registered voters turn out to vote.? Today I would add that, even when they are voting for the entire House of Representatives, a part of the Senate and other important positions, voter turnout in the U.S. is no greater. I asked, why then do they employ their enormous media resources to try to drown the Revolutionary Bolivarian Government of Venezuela in a sea of lies and slander? What they really want is Venezuela?s oil. We?ve all seen during these elections, a group of bastards who, together with the mercenaries from the local print, radio and television press, have gone so far as to attempt to eliminate freedom of the press in Venezuela. The enemy did achieve part of its objective: to stop the Bolivarian Government from obtaining a two-thirds majority in parliament. Perhaps the empire believes it has achieved a great victory. I believe the exact opposite: the September 26 election results represent a victory for the Bolivarian Revolution and its leader Hugo Chavez Frias. During these parliamentary elections the participation of the electorate rose to a record 66.45 percent. The empire, with its vast resources, was unable to hold back the PSUV, which won 95 of the 165 seats, with 6 still undecided. The most important result is the increased number of young people, women and other proven militants who were elected. Today, the Bolivarian Revolution has the Executive Power, a large majority in the parliament and a party capable of mobilizing millions of combatants in favour of socialism. The United States only has the support of fragments of parties in Venezuela, united out of their fear of the revolution and out of material greed. This time they could not resort to a coup d??tat in Venezuela as they did with Allende in Chile and in other counties in Our America. The armed forces of this fraternal country both promote and are a part of the Revolution. They are educated in the spirit and example of the Liberator, and it was their ranks that nurtured the current leaders who began this process. Such a union of forces is invincible; a fact that becomes much clearer with half a century of experience. Fidel Castro Ruz September 27, 2010 3:24 a.m. Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415 863-9977 www.Freedomarchives.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From news at freedomarchives.org Tue Sep 28 11:09:31 2010 From: news at freedomarchives.org (Anti-Imperialist News) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 08:09:31 -0700 Subject: [News] Who introduced terrorism (along with biological, chemical and nuclear weapons) to the Middle East Message-ID: Reaping Terror?s Reward: Get in there first ? That?s the Secret by Stuart Littlewood http://www.intifada-palestine.com/2010/09/reaping-terror%E2%80%99s-reward-get-in-there-first-%E2%80%93-that%E2%80%99s-the-secret/ If it wasn?t for the ?war on terror? America and Israel wouldn?t be enjoying such military fun and games and reaping such fat rewards. Whole new industries are flourishing thanks to the considerable effort they've devoted to sowing the seeds of terror. The Institute of Terrorism Research and Response (ITRR), for example, is an American-Israeli corporation ?created to help organizations succeed and prosper in a world threatened by terrorism.? Its partners include The Israel Export and International Cooperation Institute ? ?your gateway to business in Israel?. Their global intelligence division even maintains a presence in London where, they claim, ?our intelligence-gathering and analysis, research, training, and consulting services reduce your vulnerability to global and regional forms of terrorist threats and mass-casualty events.? It?s just a coincidence, of course, that Britain?s most important security bodies ? the Intelligence & Security Committee, Foreign Affairs Committee and Defence Committee ? are all headed by senior Israel flag-wavers with access to highly classified material. ITRR recently staged a Mass Casualty & Terrorism Workshop in Jerusalem attended by students from Philadelphia University. Topics included mass casualty management, security and counter-terrorism, forensic medicine as it relates to terrorism and visits to suicide bomber sites. ?These site visits include actual video footage of the events One student was amazed with the resiliency of the Israeli people and how quickly they are able to return a site ?back to normal?.? Just across the border in Gaza is the mother of all mass-casualty sites far more serious than anything Israel has had to cope with, although it caused it. A visit there would have opened students? eyes to how the Palestinians are never given the chance to return to ?normal? after Israel?s endless terror onslaughts, robbed as they are o