Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Jerusalem; A Cry for Support, A Cry for Justice

A Voice From Palestine – 23/02/2012
source: google images

As the news spread, everyone went out to the streets. Students left their classrooms and rushed to the streets. Employees left their offices and rushed to the streets. Workers and farmers stopped working and rushed to the streets. Everyone left whatever they were doing and rushed to the streets. You could hear the anger in the chants that echoed in the streets of Nablus, Bethlehem, Acca, Um Il-Fahim and Gaza. You could smell the anger in the tens of burning tires that appeared out of nowhere in almost every street, at the entrance to every village, every town, every refugee camp and every city in occupied Palestine. You could see the anger in the tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands that marched in the streets of Jenin, Yaffa, Ramallah, An-Nasreh and Rafah. Spontaneous demonstrations spread across occupied Palestine. Men, women, young, old, all marched towards Israeli checkpoints, armed with stones, armed with the flag of Palestine, armed with the love of Jerusalem, armed with the love of Palestine.

In Ramallah, in Bethlehem, in An-Nasreh, in Um Il-Fahim, in Heborn, in Haifa, in Yaffa, in An-Naqab, in Gaza, in Rafah, in Jenin, in Al-Lydd, in every village, in every refugee camp and in every town Palestinians marched. The news had spread like fire, and not only in occupied Palestine. In the Arab world protesters came out to the streets, they were marching, angry, roaring and burning the blue and white flag that symbolizes Injustice and Terror. Palestinian flags were on every rooftop, and a sea of red, black, green and white marched in every Arab capital from the ocean to the gulf, towards one point, with one destination on their minds. Elsewhere in the world, groups of justice-supporters gathered to protest in squares, in front of Zionist embassies, in front of American embassies and in front of the UN offices. The time has come for the world to regain its conscience, to find its voice and to declare that enough was enough. The time for justice has come!

PA and PLO officials sit in their offices, follow the events on TV screens, hear the roaring voices that penetrate the thick walls of the imperial palace. They know that they could do nothing and say nothing to stop the waves of marchers. They know that their negotiations-till-death policy has come to an end and wondered if it was still possible to cross the bridge and leave occupied Palestine before the borders were closed and things got even worse. They looked at each other and realized that the days of Israeli VIP-permits were over, that the days of being treated as “kings” and welcomed on red carpets all over the world were over, that the days of trading the blood of Palestine for US dollars and European Euros and all other currencies were over. They realized that even if they send their American-trained “security forces”, they could never stop the anger, the outrage, the marching masses. And while some PA officials took turns in appearing on TV stations and fanatically demanding international action and begging the US to intervene, to protect them and poor little Israel from the marching waves, others, still hoping that the PA will survive this one, said that its Israel’s way of dragging the Palestinians into violence, replaying the usual record: “we shouldn’t be fools enough to fall into the Israeli trap. With such an action they want to drag us into a new cycle of violence, we should just go back to our homes and not give them a chance to drag us into violence”. Yes, the same old record, played over and over and over: “don’t react to Israeli terror, don’t defend yourself, don’t show your anger, don’t show your outrage, don’t protest the occupation, don’t shout, don’t frown, don’t breath, don’t live or they will accuse us of existing.”

The Arab League remains blind, deaf and mute, as it is always when it comes to Palestine. It remains silent, silent that you can hear the crickets in its billion-dollar ballrooms otherwise known as conference rooms, the same rooms that only become noisy when Arab emperors and caliphs gather to legitimize another Nato invasion of an Arab country under various names. Arab emperors and caliphs send their armies, who are only programmed to oppress their own people, to the street to prevent the people from protesting. They decide not to make any official comments on the events and to wait till the storm passes or cools down or at least till after their armies force the people off the streets and impose curfews everywhere. They sit in their palaces and hope, that despite the gravity of what had happened that morning, that it will pass away and become nothing more than a mere memory, just another day to hold fiery speeches and swear to liberate Palestine and Jerusalem, just another day to commemorate like every other catastrophe that befell the Palestinians. As they watch the crowds, they wonder if maybe, just maybe, this time it will be different. But, they comfort themselves with the fact that after a month or two, to clam things and shut up any protesting voices still to be heard, they will meet, and pledge a million dollars here and a million dollars there to repair what they know can never be repaired. Yes, they will throw a few crumbs at the PA in return for its silence and in return for its iron fist over its people, for in this new world order there is no place for “chaos”, no place for “disorder”, no place for Palestinians demanding their rights, no place for Palestine. And with the crumbs of the oil-dynasties, the PA will replace the demolished homes with sardine-cans in newly established refugee camps, they will replace the destroyed fields with enslavement in labour camps or so-called industrial zones, they will replace Palestinian aspirations with Zionist dictations, they will replace Palestinian identity with one that will suit their masters, they will replace Palestine with a Zionist entity and they will tell the Palestinians: you’ll get your salary at the end of the month, so shut up or else!

The European Union members, after numerous telephone calls between Tel Aviv and Berlin, Tel Aviv and London, Tel Aviv and Paris, Tel-Aviv and every European capital, finally at the end of the day, issue a statement saying that what has happened has happened, in other words: so what, another minor catastrophe that befell the Palestinians, just add it to the list! They will add that, nonetheless, what had happened does not serve the peace process, that both parties should do their utmost to prevent the escalation of violence and that the Palestinian leadership should restrain its people. They will stress, again and again, and again, in all possible languages, that negotiations are the only solution to the conflict, and will advise both parties to return to the negotiating table as soon as possible, so as not to give a chance to anyone who wants to destroy the peace process. And in telephone calls with Ramallah, the leaders of Berlin, London, Paris and every other European capital will order Al-Muqata’a to do whatever is needed to calm the situation, to enforce calm, or else there won’t be any Euro-Transfers at the end of the month. They plan meeting the following week to condemn what had happened, albeit in a very soft tone lest Israeli leaders be offended or hurt by the condemnation. And upon demands of certain European capitals, who have gladly appointed themselves as the Zionist entity’s ambassadors in Europe, the EU decides to add a harsh condemnation of the violent Palestinian protests in reaction to Israel’s action, just to make the statement to Israeli leaders liking.  Better still, they decide to let Israeli leaders word the statement, so as to make sure it’s agreeable to the Zionist entity and that it follows the acceptable general line of blaming the victim.

Meanwhile, the White House spokesperson replies to journalists’ questions on the events in occupied Palestine and elsewhere in the world with: both Israelis and Palestinians must restrain themselves, and stresses five or six times in a 2-minute-statement that the US government stands with Israel. Zionist-financed US media outlets race to report on Palestinians out in the streets in the hundreds of thousands and how the unarmed Palestinian marchers endanger the lives of the fully-armed Israeli occupation soldiers at the checkpoints. They report how the tiny, poor, vulnerable, surrounded-by-a-sea-of-monsters, Jewish, democratic, light-unto-nations, little nuclear island of Israel is under attack again by its 20+ uncivilized, hate-filled neighbours. They report how Anti-Semitism, disguised as criticism of the Zionist entity and its crimes, is on a record rise and how the crowds everywhere in occupied Palestine and in the Arab world are burning the blue and white flag of racial superiority.

The leaders and spokespersons of the Zionist entity do what they do best: they appear on TV screens, whine and shed tears, whine again, mention the word holocaust a thousand times within 5 minutes, tell the story of little Israel rising against all odds as a shining star amidst the surrounding darkness. They explain, while more tears fall, how the desert starting to bloom and the Jordan River started yielding milk and honey after the first Zionist set foot in the empty barren land called Palestine. They whine a little bit more, and describe how the Zionist entity was attacked again and again by evil Arabs and how the democratic little island, the tiny bit of a peace-worshiping nation, the world most law-abiding entity, is surrounded by monsters, by terrorists, by invaders. Then the leaders of the Zionist entity, together with their agents in the US and Europe, demand that the world protect the existence of poor little Israel, with its nuclear weapons and its fifth strongest army in the world, which is threatened by the angry marchers, in occupied Palestinian and elsewhere, who are demanding freedom, justice, an end to Zionism and a return of all Palestinian refugees to a free Palestine from the River to the Sea.

World media outlets, including Arab media, financed with Zionist and oil-money, count the number of Israelis injured emotionally, – but no need to mention that fact – by the sight of Palestinians marching in the streets of occupied Palestine. They count the number of car tires that are burning and “polluting” the air over Israeli settlements and preventing the fully-armed settler snipers from hunting down the marching unarmed Palestinians. They count the number of stones flying towards armoured bulldozers and tanks and “threatening” the lives of Israeli soldiers inside them. They count the number of songs, slogans and poems the Palestinians sing and shout as they march and decide that singing for freedom and legitimate rights is “anti-Semitic” and a “threat to the Zionist entity’s existence”. They measure the volume of the protesters’ voices and declare that the songs are weapons of mass destruction since their volume is capable of destroying whole settlements. But these world and Arab media outlets, somehow fail to mention one word about the tear gas canisters that are fired directly inside Palestinian homes or those fired directly at the heads and chests of unarmed Palestinian protesters. They fail to mention one word about the Palestinians who are being hunted down by Israeli snipers close to checkpoints and elsewhere. They fail to mention why these Palestinians are marching and to what place they are marching.

The protests grow stronger with every passing minute, with every passing hour. Palestinians old and young, men and women, all marching towards one point, throwing stones, burning tires, defying the fully-armed Israeli occupation soldiers at checkpoints. And as they march, they break the barriers that prevented them from reaching the heart of Palestine, the walls start falling down, the checkpoints and the roadblocks are removed. They continue to march towards that one point. And when they reach their destination, they stand and ask themselves: how did we allow this to happen? They stand speechless in front of the nightmare that befell them:

After decades of Israeli deliberate excavations and diggings underneath Al-Aqsa mosque, after decades of weakening the foundations of Al-Aqsa, after decades of planning to demolish, remove and erase one of the few last remaining symbols of a Palestinian Jerusalem, one of the last few remaining symbols that defies the myth and the Zionist dream of an exclusively Jewish Jerusalem, Al-Aqsa fell down.

What I just described is one possible scenario of what will happen to Al-Aqsa, because, unless we finally act and do something to prevent it instead of only talking about doing something, Al-Aqsa will one day be a mere memory. Almost every week we read reports from experts, architects, specialists who warn of what is to come. And even without these warnings, we don’t need a crystal ball or a cup of coffee to tell us what will happen: considering that the Israelis have been digging and building tunnels beneath Al-Aqsa compound since the Naksa of 1967, it is only a matter of time when the last pillar now holding Al-Aqsa will fall and bring the mosque down.

source: google images

The diggings, construction work and attacks on Al-Aqsa are part of the on-going ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem and its Judaization. This includes taking over the Noble Sanctuary. The Zionists are not interested in Al-Aqsa, they want it removed, want it to disappear. They want an exclusively Jewish Jerusalem, and one main target is to turn the Noble Sanctuary into a modern-day Jewish temple; Palestinian neighbourhood around the Noble Sanctuary are being ethnically cleansed to make place for Jewish theme parks, occupation of Palestinian homes in the old city by Zionist colonists is on a rise, Muslim sites adjacent to the Noble Sanctuary are being confiscated and declared ancient Jewish sites, Zionist religious groups are allowed into the Noble Sanctuary to perform Jewish rituals and prayers. But while some Zionist organizations campaign for the destruction of Al-Aqsa and building the “Third Temple” in its place, others have their eyes fixed on the Dome of the Rock and want it turned into a synagogue. Jews consider the location of the “Foundation stone” as the site of the “Holy of Holiest”, and many scholars and rabbis believe it to be in the raised platform on which the Dome of the Rock is built. On one printer’s mark, the Temple is depicted as the Dome of the Rock.[1] Praying and performing Jewish religious rituals in the Noble Sanctuary compound are intended to make way for a division and a later complete take-over of the compound, in a scenario very similar to what they did with the Ibrahim mosque, where today Palestinians have control over only 10% of the mosque and the rest has been turned into a synagogue and other Jewish facilities. The Zionists had their eyes on the Ibrahimi mosque for a longtime, but it wasn’t until the Zionist terrorist Baruch Goldstein committed a massacre on 25.02.1994, and killed at least 29 Palestinian worshippers while praying in the mosque, that the Zionist entity saw its chance to steal the Ibrahimi. Following the massacre, the Ibrahimi mosque was closed in the face of Palestinians worshippers for 8 months, and only reopened with new measures that included dividing the mosque physically between the indigenous Palestinian population and the Zionist colonists who got the control over the larger part of the mosque and Judaized it. In addition, tough security arrangements have been imposed on Palestinian worshippers: the number of Palestinian worshippers allowed into the mosque is determined by the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF); they decide who enters, how many and when, while fanatic Zionists can enter and leave the mosque as they wish and when they wish. On Jewish holidays, the Ibrahimi is closed to Muslims and the Zionists have the right to use the whole mosque, and countless are the times when Israeli occupation forces prevent the calling of the prayer from the Ibrahimi mosque.

And when one of these scenarios becomes a reality, we will cry over our loss, we will be outraged, will march, will revolt, will look at each other and ask ourselves: how did we allow things to reach this point? We will turn to everyone for answers, for actions. And we will blame everyone for not acting earlier, for not doing everything possible to save Al-Aqsa, for not liberating Jerusalem and Palestine, for allowing this to happen when we had often been warned, and we ourselves warned that this will happen one day.

We will look at Arab emperors and caliphs and blame them for doing nothing to liberate Palestine. But why should we expect them to do anything for Palestine when they never cared about Palestine, so why should they care about Jerusalem or about the Noble Sanctuary? I don’t expect them to do anything to liberate Palestine because I have learned over the last few decades that you should never expect someone who handed you over to your killer to come and save you one day. I don’t expect them to do anything to liberate Palestine because I have learned that those who divided and sold Palestine the first time, will sell Palestine a second and a third and a fourth time without a wink of the eye. I don’t expect them to do anything to liberate Palestine because I don’t expect someone who is enslaved and accepts it to come and free me. I don’t expect them to do anything to liberate Palestine because I don’t expect those who watched for 60+ years as Jerusalem was being usurped and did nothing to stop the tears of Al-Aqsa, or stop the bloodshed in the courtyard of the Noble Sanctuary to finally wake up and find their dignity and courage. I don’t expect those who welcome imperialists and Zionists in their lands, those who donate their lands and wealth to colonial powers while their people hunger and those who put their hands in the hands of Zionists and imperialists to understand what dignity is, what steadfastness is, what freedom is, what homeland is, what Palestine is. I don’t expect them to do anything to liberate Palestine because they are partners in the crimes of Zionism.

We will look at Europeans and Americans emperors and lords and blame them for doing nothing to stop Zionist terrorism. But why should we expect them to do anything for Palestine when they never cared about Palestine or about Palestinian lives? I don’t expect them to do anything to stop Zionist terrorism because they were the ones who promised to build a Zionist racist terrorist entity in my homeland and planted it in the heart of the Arab world. I don’t expect them to do anything to stop Zionist terrorism because they are the ones who built the Zionist entity over the bodies of the Palestinian people, over the bones and the blood of the Palestinian people, over the homes of the Palestinian people. I don’t expect them to do anything to stop Zionist terrorism because they fund the Zionist entity that is massacring us, they provide it with the weapons to kill us, to oppress us. I don’t expect them to do anything to stop Zionist terrorism because while they speak non-stop of human rights, while they champion the human rights of every other nation, they ignore ours, they deny us our rights and deny us the right to defend ourselves and to struggle for freedom. I don’t expect them to do anything to stop Zionist terrorism because they are partners in the crimes of Zionism.

I don’t expect any of them to support justice for Palestine because they helped create the Zionist entity, they are partners in the crime being committed against Palestine and the Arab people since over 63 years.

I don’t expect them to do anything, so I don’t blame them, I blame us! I blame us because it is our land, our home, our Palestine and we shouldn’t wait for colonial powers or their obedient servants to come and liberate our land for us!

On the morning of 08.10.1990, and after calls from fanatic Jewish organizations some, 200,000 fanatic Zionist Jews marched to the Noble Sanctuary to place the foundation stone of the “Third Temple”. Thousands of Palestinians from Jerusalem and the rest of occupied Palestine gathered in the Noble Sanctuary to protect their holy places. Israeli occupation soldiers and armed fanatic colonists shot randomly at the unarmed Palestinians, killing at least 17 and injuring some 900 (Al-Aqsa massacre). This was only one of many attempts by fanatic Zionist terrorists to storm the Noble Sanctuary with the aim of damaging the compound, or even blowing up Al-Aqsa. And although during the hundreds of registered attacks, the IOF always gave cover to and protected the Jewish attackers and participated in the massacres committed by these fanatic Zionists against unarmed Palestinians, Palestinians from everywhere always rushed to protect the Noble Sanctuary, and attempts by Jewish extremists were often prevented by hundreds, by thousands of Palestinians who would leave their work, their school, their homes and rush to protect their holy places, their symbols. Any attack on Al-Aqsa was considered an attack on all of Palestine, on every Palestinian, on the heart of Palestine.

And today…
Every day we hear that new housing units will be built for the illegal Zionists colonizing Jerusalem.
Every day we hear that Israeli occupation forces and police attack villages, worshippers, farmers in Jerusalem.
Every day we hear that the Israeli occupation army is constructing walls and roadblocks to isolate Jerusalem.
Every day we hear that another Palestinian home was demolished in Jerusalem.
Every day we hear that another Palestinian was forced to demolish his own home in Jerusalem.
Every day we hear about Palestinian land being confiscated in Jerusalem.
Every day we hear that new Jewish-only roads are built on confiscated Palestinian land.
Every day we hear that Palestinian fields are destroyed in Jerusalem.
Every day we hear of plans to demolish Palestinian neighbourhoods in Jerusalem to build Jewish theme parks.
Every day we hear about Palestinians being expelled from Jerusalem, their birthplace and home.
Every day we hear that Zionist colonizers enter the Noble Sanctuary, tour it, conduct rituals.
Every day we hear that Israeli occupation soldiers, fanatic members of the Zionist Knesset “tour” the Noble Sanctuary and distribute posters of Jerusalem with a temple in place of Al-Aqsa.
Every day we hear of new cracks and collapses in the streets of the Old City, in Silwan and around Al-Aqsa.
Every day we hear of new tunnels and new diggings beneath the Noble Sanctuary, especially beneath Al-Aqsa.
Every day we hear of how Israel is destroying our Jerusalem, the heart of Palestine, and ethnically cleansing it.

Every day we hear all this and do very little and say we did something, we talk about it and we say we did something. We do nothing. While the Zionists continue the ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem, Jerusalem has become but a mere slogan raised during rallies, a song in a march, a mere name to be added to a wish-list, a bargaining chip during negotiation rounds.

While Jerusalem is drowning in the Zionist project of disfiguring the city and changing it into one large biblical park, we hear Fateh and Hamas talking about “unity”, new government and new titles and watch as they go on regional and world tours, being welcomed as heroes, as revolutionaries, when Palestine is still occupied, when Jerusalem is still under daily threat, when Zionist colonial activities continue to destroy the Palestinian landscape. Those who claim to represent us, from the various factions, are busy touring countries and collecting money in our name, money we never see but is the price for our silence and our little action, if any action at all. Our only worry has become the budget, the aid, the salary and whether it will be paid in time. Our only struggle has become to get funds for our ministries, the thousands over thousands of NGOs, and the hundreds over hundreds of resistance groups and committees. Yes, even popular resistance has become a business, in some cases even a private family business and a ticket to quick “fame”. So what makes us think that we are better? Because we condemn more often? Even our voice for Jerusalem has become weaker and weaker. Yes, many Palestinians are not allowed into Jerusalem, but are we to wait for the full Judiazation of our beloved Jerusalem, the birthplace of many of us who aren’t allowed into the city anymore? Are we to watch as the heart of Palestine vanishes and transforms into something that is alien to us, and then cry over what once was? I don’t want to read about my Jerusalem from books and memoires and historians as we read about Palestinian Beisan and Palestinian Tabaria. They have already erased over 80% of original Jerusalem and transformed it into residential suburbs for European colonists, malls and natural parks that are built on the remains of our villages, on the graves of our ancestors, on the bones of our grandparents. The Zionist entity has managed to isolate Jerusalem, and to an extent remove it from our agendas and the agendas of those who claim to represent us or the agendas of those who claim to support us. Reducing Jerusalem to a slogan, to a song, to a prayer will not liberate Jerusalem.

And when the PA started talking about so-called “land-exchange” as an option “in the interest of peace”, we did nothing. And when the PA stopped talking about “land-exchange” as an option, and started treating it as a fact, as a reality, as a Palestinian demand, we kept silent. And while it is the Zionist colonists who are refusing to give up one inch of Jerusalem, the PA is the one willing to give up every bit of Jerusalem, and leave us with Abu Dees as Al-Quds, for the sake of a prison within a prison. And we remain silent. Those who remember Jerusalem when it suits them or when their complicity in and their silence over Zionist crimes become too damning are not the guardians of Jerusalem, are not the representatives of the Palestinian people and will never be.

It is only when the “PA” tries in vain to cover up its complicity in Zionist crimes that it finally remembers there is a Jerusalem and calls for Palestinians to “direct their eyes and their efforts towards the –forgotten- Jerusalem”. It is only with the exposure of “PA” scandals that it finally remembers Jerusalem and calls Palestinians “not to forget the holy city”. And when Jerusalem cries out for help, it is the ”PA” that is only second to the Zionist entity in trying to silence that cry. And when the Israeli aggression on Jerusalem intensified and when the city cried blood, it was the “PA” who prevented demonstrations in support of Jerusalem and prohibited any signs of solidarity with the city, the future capital of the Palestinian state they keep fervently talking about, it was the “PA” who prevented any protest against the Israeli occupation they keep saying they want to free us from. And when Jerusalem cried out for help and Palestinians everywhere in occupied Palestine rushed to answer its call, it was the thugs of the “PA” who stood as a wall of shame between Jerusalem and the rest of Palestine, and it was one PA “official” who was quoted saying: “if they want to demonstrate for Jerusalem, let them go there, there will be no demonstrating here.” (This was said while they were preventing people from reaching the checkpoints). As if Jerusalem is in another continent, or another galaxy. As if Jerusalem wasn’t the heart of Palestine. In fact, this PA official was actually saying things as they are: the PA’s duty is to protect the “borders” of the Zionist entity, and according to the PA, Jerusalem was “there” and not “here”, as in: Jerusalem is not in PA territory, so it’s not our business what happens there; You want to protest, go there. You want to liberate Jerusalem, go there! He was saying the reality of what the PA considers “ours” and what is to be part of the “future Palestinian state” and what the PA considers “theirs” and what is to be sold to the Zionists. And when the PA decides that Palestinians of the West Bank are not allowed to protest in solidarity with Jerusalem in Ramallah or Bethlehem, then it is clear that according to the PA: Jerusalem is to be “theirs”. This is how much they want Jerusalem. This is how much they want the freedom of Jerusalem. This is how much they stand with the people of Jerusalem. Most recently, one official demanded the establishment of a Jerusalem ministry. Yes, as if liberation is achieved behind desks, as if we don’t have enough corruption-infested ministries, as if we don’t have enough money being stolen in the name of the Palestinian people. Will a “ministry” liberate Jerusalem? Did any of the ministries liberate one inch of Palestine? Did the whole cabinet liberate one inch of Palestine? Or were these ministries just swamps for corruption, nepotism, favouritism, you just name it. As if more employees sitting behind desks doing nothing will liberate Palestine, as if an extra minister, a couple of director generals and directors will liberate Jerusalem. What will the titles of these new posts be? The minister of Jerusalem? Which part of Jerusalem? The General Director of Abu Dees? The General Director of Al-Aqsa?

source: palestineremembered.com

I remember once on social networks when one Diaspora Palestinian commented that he doesn’t really care if Al-Aqsa is destroyed, adding that it is only a building and that we shouldn’t give it much attention. A number of non-Palestinian solidarity activists agreed with what he was saying. I could only shake my head at how everything, every single thing that is our symbol, our right, our identity, has become in one way or another “not really that important”, and all you hear is the talk about “morality”, a discussion initiated by Israeli “activists”, as if the only way to show we are “morally equivalent” to the “civilized world” is when we say adieu to our national identity, adieu to our national constants, adieu to our inalienable rights, adieu to our resistance, whether armed or popular and as we define it and as we see it, adieu to us being Palestinians, because according to some it should only be about rights, about morality, about us all being humans. Yes, we are all humans, we all have legitimate rights, we all should be treated equally as we are all born equal, but I don’t see anyone, except us the Palestinians, being asked to give up our aspirations, our identity, our legitimate rights “to prove our morality and humanity”. We are to give up everything that defines us, everything that defies the lies of the Zionists. These same Israeli “conditional activists” mention how if they were living under the same oppression as we are, they would never be able to just protest peacefully, and here, according to them, lies our high morality. I wonder how these same “activists” would react were we to decide one day that the experiment of flying balloons and marching in Hollywood  costumes isn’t effective in defeating a brutal military occupation, would they still think us “morally equivalent” to their “morality”? The answer to that is as clear as the sun on a summer day in occupied Palestine. And the Zionist entity’s intent on destroying Al-Aqsa should alarm not only Muslim Palestinians, but every Palestinian, every Arab and every justice-seeking person. Because:

1. If buildings don’t matter, as that Diaspora Palestinian claimed and those “solidarity activities” agreed to, then why did the Zionist entity rush to demolish entire Palestinian villages (over 500 villages were wiped off the face of the earth during the Nakba)?
2. If buildings don’t matter, then why did the Zionists rush after the Naksa to demolish more Palestinian villages and entire neighbourhoods in the Old City of Jerusalem? (one example are the three Latroun villages)
3. If buildings don’t matter, then why did the Zionists start digging networks of tunnels underneath Al-Aqsa and continue to do so after 45 years despite finding nothing of what they are so eagerly looking for?
4. If buildings don’t matter, then why did the Zionists build and continue to build Zionist colonies everywhere in occupied Palestine, whether it is in Jerusalem, Al-Jalil or Hebron?
5. If buildings don’t matter, then why do Zionists demolish entire Palestinian communities all over occupied Palestine, whether it is in Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley or An-Naqab?
6. If buildings don’t matter, then why do the Zionists prevent Palestinians from building homes, and send their troops to demolish the least sign of a building, whether it is a house, a mosque, a room, a goat barn, even a small shack?

The answer is very simple: Because these buildings, the ones some consider irrelevant and unimportant, connect us to this land. These building expose the lies of Zionism that Palestine was “a land with no people for a people without a land” and that the Zionists “made the desert bloom”. These building expose the lie that this land is an exclusively Jewish island. These building expose the lie that there is nothing called Palestinians, Palestinian culture, Palestinian existence. These building expose the lie that the Palestinians are invented. These buildings, these homes, these villages, these mosques, these churches, these barns, even the stones of the ethnically cleansed villages expose the lies of Zionism and scream: here lived the Palestinians, here live the Palestinians, here the Palestinians will remain.

Note: depending on my free time and on the topic at hand, writing a blog post might take me a day, a few days, or even a few weeks. I started writing this blog post early January, while following up the Israeli actions in Jerusalem and the not-so-surprising silence and blindness of the world and the Arab League.

The ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem and its Judaization occurs on a daily basis and with increasing intensity. Not a day passes when there is no confiscation of Palestinian land in Jerusalem, when there is no occupation of Palestinian homes by Zionist colonists, when they is no revocation of Jerusalem IDs of Palestinian Jerusalemites. And with the exception of the very shy “condemnations” here and there, Zionist ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem is accompanied with world silence and complete inaction. It continues with the approval of the US, the EU, the Arab regimes and the complicity of the so-called PA which with every passing day only proves to us that it was only created for the sole reason of providing a sort of “legitimacy” to the sell-out of Palestine and Palestinian rights.

According to Al-Aqsa Foundation, the Israeli high court issued a ruling on 01.02.2012, in which it allowed Gershon Solomon, the leader of the Jewish fanatic terror group “Temple Mount Faithful”, to enter Al-Aqsa. In its ruling the court stated that Jews have the right to pray in Al-Aqsa mosque. Just imagine what will happen if a Muslim entered a synagogue and performed Muslim rituals there. Various sources also reported that proposals were presented to the Zionist municipality of Jerusalem for the establishment of a huge Jewish centre to the east of Al-Aqsa mosque, which is to be built over the ruins of Islamic and Arabic historic buildings that were demolished over the years by the Israeli Antiquities Authority in its useless efforts to prove that the city is exclusively Jewish. In addition, a commercial centre and a parking lot will be built on lands that belong to the Armenian Monastery.

Allowing Jewish rituals in Christian and Muslim religious sites is only one step towards annexing them, declaring them Jewish and turning them into synagogues. And under the guise of protecting Jewish worshippers, Palestinian neighbourhoods surrounding these sites are being ethnically cleansed. In Hebron, complete areas, neighbourhoods and streets are off limits to the Palestinians, and the homes of Palestinians in these areas stand empty. Their residents are either expelled or forced to leave after continuous attacks from the Zionist colonists who are protected by the Israeli occupation army. In the Old city of Jerusalem and its surroundings, whole areas are being ethnically cleansed in the name of the Jewish religion and establishing Jewish theme parks. These actions have only one goal: to ethnically cleanse Jerusalem. In the last couple of years, Israeli occupation soldiers have intensified their so-called “tours” in the Noble Sanctuary and the calls of the fanatic Jewish groups for their followers to storm the Noble Sanctuary and conduct Jewish rituals have become a weekly matter. While writing this blog post, a number of such “tours” and “marches” took place, for example, on 08.02.2012, a group of 26 Israeli occupation soldiers and 12 Israeli intelligence officers “toured” the surrounding of the Dome of the Rock. In a call for their supporters to storm the Noble Sanctuary on 12.02.2012, Likud members declared: “we call on everyone to go the Temple Mount to announce a proper leadership that confirms the full control over the Temple Mount, in order to cleanse this site from the enemy, the land thieves, and to build the Temple on the ruins of mosques.”[2] On 14.02.2012, 29 Israeli occupation soldiers and 44 occupation policemen entered inside the Dome of the Rock for the first time and “toured” it, and when they were asked by one of the mosque guards about the reason for their presence inside the mosque, they replied that it was an “educational tour”. On 19.02.2012, confrontations erupted between Palestinians worshippers and Israeli occupation forces as Zionist colonists attempted to storm Al-Aqsa and perform Jewish rituals there. This attempt came after calls were made by Temple Mount Faithful and other fanatic Jewish groups to storm the mosque in order “to strengthen Jewish sovereignty over it”[3] as they claimed. On 22.02.2012, confrontations erupted when a group of Zionist colonists were escorted by more than 40 Israeli occupation soldiers into the Noble Sanctuary. Another group of 22 female Zionist colonists entered Al-Aqsa later that day, following a call by a fanatic Jewish women’s group to storm Al-Aqsa mosque and pray there. This group also announced that it was planning similar “visits” twice a month.

In a recent study, Al-Aqsa Foundation revealed that during 2011 Al-Aqsa mosque and its surroundings were subjected to 100 attacks and was stormed by 5,000 Zionist colonists. This has been accompanied with an escalation in the number of incursions by Israeli occupation soldiers and intelligence officers. Excavations beneath the Noble Sanctuary and settlement activities around it continue and increase while essential maintenance work inside Al-Aqsa is prohibited by Israel.

Previous blog posts on the topic:

Zionist Definition of Religious Tolerance: If it’s not Jewish, either we Judaize it or we Destroy it! (II)
Zionist Attacks on Al-Haram Al-Qudsi Ash-Sharif
The Tale of 3 Palestinian Villages
Al-Aqsa Massacre 08.10.1990
The Ibrahimi Mosque Massacre 25.02.1994

Footnotes
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dome_of_the_Rock
[2] http://www.qudsmedia.com/?p=53002
[3] http://www.qudsmedia.com/?p=55013
© http://avoicefrompalestine.wordpress.com/

February 25, 2012 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular | , , | 1 Comment

Changes made in DOD Instruction “Handling Dissident and Protest Activities Among Members of the Armed Forces”

Discussion and commentary by James M. Branum, Military Law Task Force | February 25, 2012

On February 22, 2012, the Department of Defense made major changes to DOD Instruction 1325.06 (PDF download).

These changes appear to be part of a major military policy change that is designed to stifle and suppress a growing GI movement against the wars in the Middle East.

Some of the more troubling changes include:

Enclosure 3, section 2. OFF-POST GATHERING PLACES. Commanders have the authority to place establishments off-limits in accordance with established procedures when, for example, the activities taking place there at these establishments include, but are not limited to, counseling, encouraging, or inciting Service members to refuse to perform duty or to desert; pose a significant adverse effect on Service members’ health, morale, or welfare; or otherwise present a clear danger to the loyalty, discipline, or morale of a member or military unit.

The changes in this section certainly appear to be directed at the GI coffeehouses at Fort Hood, Joint Base Lewis-McChord and in Kaiserslautern, Germany. Free speech and GI Rights advocates need to be ready to respond to possible moves by commanders to place the coffeehouses off-limits under this newly revised regulation.

Also one could argue that a commander could place a Mennonite Church or a Quaker Meetinghouse on the off-limits list, since these establishments have been known to encourage their members to resist participation in war.

Enclosure 3, Section 8. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES

a. Military personnel must not actively advocate supremacist, extremist, or criminal gang doctrine, ideology, or causes, including those that advance, encourage, or advocate illegal discrimination based on race, creed, color, sex, religion, ethnicity, or national origin or those that advance, encourage, or advocate the use of force, violence, or criminal activity or otherwise advance efforts to deprive individuals of their civil rights.

b. Military personnel must reject active participation in criminal gangs pursuant to section 544 of Public Law 110-181 (Reference (i)) and in other organizations that advocate supremacist, extremist, or criminal gang doctrine, ideology, or causes; including those that attempt to create illegal discrimination based on race, creed, color, sex, religion, ethnicity, or national origin; advocate the use of force, violence, or criminal activity; or otherwise engage in efforts to deprive individuals of their civil rights. Active participation in such gangs or organizations is prohibited. Active participation includes, but is not limited to, fundraising; demonstrating or rallying; recruiting, training, organizing, or leading members; distributing material (including posting online); knowingly wearing gang colors or clothing; having tattoos or body markings associated with such gangs or organizations; or otherwise engaging in activities in furtherance of the objective of such gangs or organizations that are detrimental to good order, discipline, or mission accomplishment or are incompatible with military service.

c. Commanders have the authority to employ the full range of administrative and disciplinary actions, including administrative separation or appropriate criminal action, against military personnel who engage in activity prohibited in paragraphs 8.a. or 8.b. of this enclosure when such conduct or activity is detrimental to good order and discipline or is service discrediting.

d. The functions of command include vigilance about the existence of such activities; active use of investigative authority to include a prompt and fair complaint process; and use of administrative powers such as counseling, reprimands, orders, and performance evaluations to deter such activities.

e. The Military Departments shall ensure that the policy and procedures on prohibited activities in this Instruction are included in initial active duty training, precommissioning training, professional military education, commander training, and other appropriate Service
training programs.

On the surface, this section may not look so troubling. The military has, at least officially, long banned its members from active participation in hate groups. However, if read carefully, these changes are in fact very troubling. First, the DOD does not define the term “extremist” anywhere in this regulation, which opens the door for soldiers to be prosecuted for mere membership in peaceful organizations that are deemed to be “extremist.”

Secondly, the DOD has omitted the requirement (previously found in section 8 (c) above), that prohibited conduct or activity in a banned organization must be “detrimental to good order and discipline or is service discrediting.”

Third, the DOD has now banned even the wearing of clothing or colors off-post that would reflect membership in one of the loosely defined banned organizations.

Enclosure 3, Section 9. PREVENTIVE ACTIVITIES

a. Commanders should remain alert for signs of future prohibited activities. They should intervene early, primarily through counseling, when observing such signs even though the signs may not rise to active advocacy or active participation or may not threaten good order and discipline, but only suggest such potential. The goal of early intervention is to minimize the risk of future prohibited activities.

b. Examples of such signs, which, in the absence of the active advocacy or active participation addressed in paragraphs 8.a and 8.b are not prohibited, could include mere membership in criminal gangs and other organizations covered under paragraph 8.b. Signs could also include possession of literature associated with such gangs or organizations, or with related ideology, doctrine, or causes. While mere membership or possession of literature normally is not prohibited, it may merit further investigation and possibly counseling to emphasize the importance of adherence to the Department’s values and to ensure that the Service member understands what activities are prohibited.

This entire section is completely new to the regulation, and requires that commanders be alert for “future prohibited activities.” While the regulation tries to skirt the line of not violating the First Amendment (i.e. “mere membership or possession of literature” is not prohibited), it makes it clear that commanders are expected to “investigate” such soldiers, which will inevitably result in negative counseling statements (blackmarks against a soldier’s record) and subsequent harassment from NCO’s (non-commissioned officers).

As a whole, the newly revised DOD Instruction 1325.06 poses serious dangers for the civil liberties of all military service-members. We at the Military Law Task Force of the National Lawyers Guild remain ready to do our part to protect soldiers in need. Please do not hesitate to contact us, if we can be of assistance.

UPDATE ADDED ON FEBRUARY 25, 2012: In section 8 (b) above, the DOD bans organizations that “attempt to create illegal discrimination based on race, creed, color, sex, religion, ethnicity, or national origin.” Interesting enough, in the post-DADT era, sexual orientation didn’t make the list.

February 25, 2012 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Militarism | , | 5 Comments

Insinuation as War Propaganda

By Anthony Gregory | The Independent Institute | February 23, 2012

In 2002 and early 2003, the Bush administration made its case for war with Iraq. There were assertions given about Saddam’s maintenance of weapons of mass destruction and ties to al-Qaeda. What was never said explicitly, however, was that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. Yet by late 2003, seventy percent of polled Americans thought Saddam Hussein was personally behind 9/11. Bush’s Republican voters were especially convinced of this.

Yet Bush and his officials never said this. And after the multiple disasters of the Iraq war began to present themselves with great clarity, the Bush officials were questioned about their pre-war intel. Yet they could say, strictly speaking, one thing they never claimed was Saddam was behind 9/11.

Condoleezza Rice had said something about the attacks originating in the same region or area as Iraq. There was all sorts of insinuation that Saddam might have been involved. And surely the Bush team never put an ounce of effort into disabusing the American people of the completely false notion that Saddam was behind 9/11. The vast majority of Americans believed it—indeed, at times, more Americans thought Saddam was behind the attacks than believed the Iraq War was just!—yet it was not only completely untrue, but not directly rooted in any explicit assertion given by the administration. Various pro-war commentators had said it, but Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell—none of them ever did.

Fast forward a decade to the current day. Seventy-one percent of Americans—almost exactly the percentage that thought Saddam was behind 9/11—think that Iran has nuclear weapons.  It’s a small sample, but it is consistent with polls over the last couple years, each one showing a majority believing Iran already has nukes, and almost nine out of ten Americans sure that Iran is seeking them.

Indeed, talking with “respectable” liberals—the type who listen to NPR and watch Jon Stewart—I find repeatedly that even folks who don’t want to go to war assume that every reasonable American knows that Iran is on the brink of having nukes, if the regime doesn’t already have them.

What’s bizarre about this, other than the fact that there is no credible evidence that Iran has nuclear weapons, is that no one in a position of official authority is claiming it either! Every report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, even when framed in a way to make Iran seem ominous, confirms the “non-diversion” of nuclear materials to weaponization purposes. The CIA and intelligence community have consistently stood by the National Intelligence Estimate findings that Iran has not sought a nuclear weapon since 2003 (and Iran doing so back then is only suspected based on very scant evidence produced by the Israeli government).

What’s more, in the last week or so, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta stressed that not only does Iran not have nuclear weapons; there is no evidence that Iran even wants nuclear weapons!! 

Even if Iran wanted to make nuclear weapons, it would probably take three or more years. Iran is reportedly attempting to enrich its uranium to 19.75% LEU. Nuclear weapons require 95%—and there is no evidence that Iran has the means to do this. It is even more dubious to believe a nuclear-armed Iran would be some sort of unprecedented threat for the United States, but that’s neither here nor there.

So what’s the deal? The Obama administration (and the Bush administration, and the UN) have all had the same official position: Iran doesn’t have nukes, and the Iranians probably aren’t looking to get them. Yet seven out of ten Americans think Iran already has them. Meanwhile, every Republican presidential candidate except Ron Paul warns about the unparalleled threat of a nuclear Iran, and the Obama White House punishes the country with tighter sanctions and ever more threats.

Indeed, Obama has thrived on the insinuation that Iran has nukes. When he acted tough back in 2009 because Iran had been caught red-handed with its fledgling nuclear facility at Qom—a civilian nuclear facility that Iran readily alerted the international community to, consistent with its continuing adherence to the Non-Proliferation Treaty to which Iran is a signatory—he did so against a backdrop of insinuation that of course everyone knows Iran wants nuclear weapons. He did this even though all that existed at Qom, according to an IAEA official, was a “hole in a mountain.” Why didn’t the president remind the public instead that there is little to worry about, since the entire Defense Department and intelligence community confirm that Iran has no nuclear weapons program?

If a war begins with Iran, it will largely be on the basis of propaganda believed by the public, propaganda that the government has never officially articulated. In the past, the U.S. thrived on outright lies for war: the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, Kuwaiti babies being ripped from incubators, and so forth. There has long been a fair share of unsubstantiated allegations involved behind major U.S. wars—the USS Maine being sunk by the Spanish, the Zimmerman Telegram posing an actual threat to the United States, the Serbians committing genocide of ethnic Albanians, killing many tens of thousands of civilians in the late 1990s, and so on.

Yet today lies and unproven allegations are not enough. The U.S. warfare state appears to thrive on insinuation in its war propaganda. The U.S. war machine’s top brass never outright declare the most provocative claims about U.S. enemies. That way, when the war goes south and people begin accusing the political class of misleading them, the empire’s defenders can easily say (accurately in word if not in spirit): “Bush never claimed Saddam was behind 9/11! Obama never claimed Iran had nuclear weapons!”

But don’t think for a moment that our rulers aren’t glad the American people believe what they do. It makes wars so much easier to wage when the public buys into all sorts of nonsense. The plausible deniability that insinuated propaganda gives the ruling class is just icing on the cake.

February 25, 2012 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , , | Leave a comment

Progressives Embrace Humanitarian Imperialism – Again!

DemocracyNow! Hosts a Non-debate on Syria

By John V. Walsh | Dissident Voice | February 25th, 2012

“Foreign Intervention in Syria? A Debate with Joshua Landis and Karam Nachar” promised the headline on DemocracyNow! on 22 February. Eagerly I tuned in, hoping to hear a thorough exposé of the machinations of the US Empire in Syria on its march to Iran.

But this was neither exposé nor debate. Both sides, Landis and Nachar, were pro-intervention for “humanitarian” reasons. Nor did the host Amy Goodman or her co-host take these worthies to task for their retrograde views on imperial military action against a sovereign nation that had made no attack on the US. It was yet one more sign that the “progressive” movement in the West has largely abandoned its antiwar, anti-intervention stance.

The segment began with a clip of John McCain advocating yet another war, for the good of the Syrians of course, bombing them to save them. The first guest was Joshua Landis, a prof in Oklahoma whose bio tells us that he “regularly travels to Washington DC to consult with the State Department and other government agencies.” The other agencies are not specified, but he speaks at the Council on Foreign Relations and similar venues. Professor Landis represents the anti-intervention voice in the universe of Amy Goodman, but his opening words manifested the limits of that universe: “Well, I’m not opposed to helping the (Syrian) opposition.” He continued, “The problem right now, the dangers right now with arming the opposition, is that we’re not sure who to arm.”

Confused, I thought surely the next guest would be the anti-interventionist. He was Karam Nachar “cyber-activist” and Princeton Ph.D. candidate, working with Syrian “protesters” via “social media platforms.” That means he is safely ensconced in New Jersey far from where U.S. bombs would fall. Perhaps this fellow would say loud and clear the Syrians did not need the interference of the West, did not need sanctions to starve them nor bombs to pulverize their cities. Perhaps he would laud the Chinese-Russian proposal for both sides to stop firing and to negotiate a solution.

But he did not. He also was for intervention by the West. And he did not think the disorganization of the opposition, cited by Landis, justified hesitation or delay in arming that opposition. That and not any principled anti-interventionism distinguished the two sides in this “debate.” Said the cyber-activist: “Well, to start with, I disagree with Professor Landis’s portrayal of the situation with the Syrian opposition. It is true that, for instance, in the Syrian National Council, there are a lot of disagreements. But (the opposition is) still frustrated with the leadership of the Syrian National Council because of its inability to solicit more international support…. And I believe that the State Department, Secretary Clinton and the American administration is heading towards that. … It’s going to require a lot of money and a lot of courage and a lot of involvement on the part of the international community.” [Emphasis added]

And then the boy cyber-activist got nasty: “I am just a little wary that this overemphasis on how leaderless the Syrian opposition is actually a tactic being used of people who actually do not want the regime to be overthrown and who have always actually defended the legitimacy of the Syrian regime, and especially of Bashar al-Assad.” There it is. Even if one is for intervention in principle, no delay is to be countenanced. Such people are surely on the side of Bashar Al-Assad.

This is the kind of “debate” we get on “progressive” media outlets. It is not even a debate about whether there should be imperial intervention, once completely verboten on the Left, but when and under what circumstances military intervention should occur. This phony debate should simply be ignored whether it appears on DemocracyNow! or on NPR, increasingly indistinguishable in content and outlook or anywhere else. In fairness to Amy Goodman, just a few weeks back on February 7, she hosted the British writer and long time student of Syria, Patrick Seale. Said Seale: “I believe dialogue is the only way out of this. And indeed, the Russians have suggested to both sides to come to Moscow and start a dialogue. But the opposition says, ‘No, we can’t dialogue with Bashar al-Assad. He must be toppled first.’ Well, that’s a dangerous—a dangerous position to adopt.” That interview is well worth reading. And Goodman would do well to stick with that instead of shifting over to empty debates between interventionism now versus interventionism later. After repeatedly hosting the CIA consultant Juan Cole to cheer the cruel war on Libya, Goodman now seems to be going down the same path with Syria. It is a sad spectacle and one more indication of how little the “progressives” in the West understand the nature of Humanitarian Imperialism which uses human rights to sell war. It looks like it’s time to abandon Goodman and switch to Alyona.

John V. Walsh can be reached at john.endwar@gmail.com.

February 25, 2012 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , , , , | 2 Comments

France deploys security forces to Reunion Island amid protests

Press TV – February 25, 2012

France has dispatched riot forces to the Indian Ocean island of Reunion to beef up its security following violent protests against the high costs of living on the island.

Protests broke out in Reunion on Tuesday after truckers staged rallies against the rise of gas prices. However, they were later joined by many more protesters, infuriated over the high costs of living in general.

Almost a third of the residents of the French island of Reunion are unemployed and over half are struggling in poverty.

Three days of clashes between the protesters and the riot police left at least nine police officers injured and several shops and public buildings damaged. At least 76 protesters were also arrested during the clashes.

On Thursday night, the clashes were slightly less violent than previous nights in the capital Saint Denis, but unrest had spread to other cities around the island.

French Interior Minister Claude Gueant on Friday denounced the violence as “absolutely unacceptable.”

February 25, 2012 Posted by | Economics | , , | Leave a comment

Syria’s Electronic Warriors Hit Al Jazeera

Leaked emails reveal dismay among Al-Jazeera staff over its “biased and unprofessional” coverage of Syria

By Wissam Kanaan | Al Akhbar | February 24, 2012

Damascus – On Wednesday, the entire staff of the Al Jazeera network allegedly received an email instructing them to change their computer and email passwords.

Earlier in the week, the network’s server had been hacked by the self-styled Syrian Electronic Army, and some of its secrets were released to the media.

The major find to be made public was an email exchange between anchorwoman Rula Ibrahim and Beirut-based reporter Ali Hashem. The emails seemed to indicate widespread disaffection within the channel, especially over its coverage of the crisis in Syria.

Ibrahim wrote to her colleague saying that she had “turned against the revolution” in Syria after realizing that the protests would “destroy the country and lead to a civil war.” She went on to deride the opposition Free Syrian Army, which she described as “a branch of al-Qaeda.”

Ibrahim also complained about the attitudes of various colleagues at the channel’s Doha headquarters, saying some of them “have refused to greet me ever since the outbreak of events in Syria because they hold a grudge against my sect.”

Hashem responded sympathetically, saying he had opted to sit on the fence after sending the channel footage of armed men clashing with the army which he had witnessed while reporting from northeastern Lebanon. He said that after he submitted the video, he was told to return to Beirut on the grounds that he was exhausted.

In her response, Ibrahim once again protested that she had “been utterly humiliated. They wiped the floor with me because I embarrassed Zuheir Salem, spokesperson for Syria’s Muslim Brothers. As a result, I was prevented from doing any Syrian interviews, and threatened with [a] transfer to the night shift on the pretext that I was making the channel imbalanced.”

Ibrahim also spoke of how Syrian activists invited onto Al Jazeera use terms of sectarian incitement on air, “which Syrians understand very well.”

Hashem wondered in response where the channel’s head of news, Ibrahim Hilal, stood in all this. Ibrahim answered that he was “stuck between a rock and a hard place: the agenda and professionalism…” … Full article

February 24, 2012 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , | 2 Comments

Loss of US Civil Liberties: State Secrets and ‘US v Reynolds’

History Commons Project: Loss of US Civil Liberties
Open-Content project managed by Paul, KJF, PDevlinBuckley, blackmax

October 6, 1948: B-29 Crashes in Georgia; Subsequent Lawsuit Becomes Focus of Government’s ‘State Secrets Privilege’ Assertion

A test flight for the Air Force’s Project Banshee, located at Robins Air Force Base in Georgia, is set for 8:30 a.m. Banshee is an attempt begun in 1946 to develop and deploy a long-range missile ahead of both the Soviet Union and rival US military branches. The airplane used in the test flight crashes less than an hour into its flight, killing 9 of the 13 aboard.
Maintenance Problems – The plane assigned for the flight is a B-29 Stratofortress, a bomber made famous by its delivery of the atomic bombs to Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II. B-29s are notoriously difficult to fly and maintain: their four wing-mounted engines almost routinely overheat and catch fire, causing engine shutdowns, sudden drops in altitude, and, often, crashes. The engines’ eighteen cylinders lack sufficient airflow to keep them cool, and the overheating often causes the crankcases, made of light but highly flammable magnesium, to burst into flames. Like so many of its brethren, the plane has suffered its share of maintenance issues, and is flying without numerous recommended maintenance and repair tasks being performed. Just five days before, it had been designated “red cross”—grounded and unfit for service. It was allowed to fly through an “exceptional release” signed by the squadron commander.
Crew Difficulties – The flight is moved back to the afternoon after some crew members fail to show up on time, and to allow last-minute repairs to be made. By takeoff, the flight crew is assembled: Captain Ralph Erwin; co-pilot Herbert W. Moore; flight engineer Earl Murrhee; First Lieutenant Lawrence Pence, Jr, the navigator; Sergeant Walter Peny, the left scanner; Sergeant Jack York, the right scanner; Sergeant Melvin Walker, the radio operator; and Sergeant Derwood Irvin, manning the bombsight and autopilot. The crew is joined by civilian engineers assigned to Banshee: Al Palya and Robert Reynolds from RCA, William Brauner and Eugene Mechler from the Franklin Institute, and Richard Cox from the Air Force’s Air Materiel Command. In violation of standard procedure, none of the crew or the civilians are briefed on emergency procedures, though Murrhee will later say that the crew were all familiar with the procedures; he is not so sure about the civilians, though he knows Palya and Reynolds have flown numerous test flights before. In another violation of Air Force regulations, none of the flight crew have worked together before. As author Barry Siegel will note in 2008, “The pilot, copilot, and engineer had never shared the same cockpit before.”
Engine Fire and Crash – Less than an hour into the flight, one engine catches fire and two others lose power, due to a combination of maintenance failures and pilot errors. The civilians have some difficulty getting into their parachutes as Erwin and Moore attempt to regain control of the aircraft. Four of the crew and civilians manage to parachute from the plane, but most remain on board as the airplane spirals into the ground on the edge of the Okefenokee Swamp, near Waycross, Georgia. Crew members Moore, Murrhee, and Peny survive, as does a single civilian, Mechler. Four others either jump at too low an altitude or die when their chutes foul the airplane; the other five never manage to leave the plane and die on impact.
Widows File Suit – Several of the civilians’ widows will file suit against the US Air Force, asserting that their husbands died because of Air Force negligence (see June 21, 1949). Their lawsuit will eventually become US v. Reynolds, a landmark Supreme Court case and the underpinning for the government’s claims of state secrets privilege (see March 9, 1953). [Siegel, 2008, pp. 3, 14-17, 33-49]

October 12-18, 1948: Initial News Reports Tell of Crash Flight’s Secret Mission

Initial Associated Press reports of a crash in Georgia of a B-29 that had been on a test flight for the Air Force’s secret Project Banshee (see October 6, 1948) acknowledge that “the plane had been on a mission testing secret electronic equipment which RCA developed and built under an Air Force contract… Full details of the plane’s mission were not disclosed.… The Air Force would say only that the bomber was engaged in ‘electronic research on different types of radar…’” Local papers have a bit more detail, with survivor accounts hinting at confusion and some contradictions between their versions of events and that being given out by official Air Force spokesmen. Later reports from the Air Force will downplay the B-29’s involvement in Project Banshee. [Siegel, 2008, pp. 56-58]

October 18, 1948: Report Raises Possibility of Pilot Error for ‘Banshee’ Crash; Air Force Denies Possibility

The Army Air Force’s Air Materiel Command receives the initial report on an investigation of a B-29 crash in Georgia (see October 6, 1948). Perceptions of the crash are colored by the fact that the bomber was carrying equipment from Project Banshee, a secret Air Force missile development initiative. The initial report is meticulously factual, providing an almost minute-by-minute account of the events preceding the crash as told by the four survivors and intensive examination of the debris. The report concludes that it would benefit future B-29 pilots to have more training on flying the plane when it has lost both engines on one wing, and a general recommendation that the pilot and crew should give civilian passengers better instruction in emergency procedures. Though the report is circumspect in the extreme in finding fault with the pilot and military personnel for the crash, and gives only vague and generalized recommendations to help prevent future crashes, the Air Force will heatedly deny that the pilots or crew could have been in any way responsible for the crash. In 2008, reporter Barry Siegel will write, “Years later, this particular claim, in fact Air Materiel Command’s entire position, would cause various veteran aviators to hoot.” Pilot error causing the crash is obvious, they will conclude. [Siegel, 2008, pp. 62-65]

Late November, 1948: RCA Asks to See Classified Accident Reports from Banshee Crash, Air Force Refuses

Frank Folsom, the executive vice president of the Radio Corporation of America’s RCA Victor Division, writes a letter to General Hoyt Vandenberg, the commander of the US Air Force. Folsom is inquiring about the deaths of two RCA employees in a recent B-29 crash in Georgia (see October 6, 1948). The plane had been on a secret test mission for the Air Force’s Project Banshee, a missile development project in which RCA is heavily involved. Folsom believes that the Air Force is downplaying the likelihood that pilot error caused the crash (see October 18, 1948), and tells Vandenberg that “certain steps will [need to be taken] if we are to participate in the future in Air Force flight test programs.” Folsom wants more pay and compensation for RCA employees participating in Air Force test programs, as well as newer and safer airplanes to be used in the test flights and a higher caliber of test pilots and crew members. Perhaps the portion of the letter that causes the most consternation among Air Force officials is Folsom’s request to read over the official accident reports. “When a crash has occurred, a copy of the official report… must be made available promptly to us,” he writes. “Needless to say, the report will not be disclosed except to those who are directly concerned.” Folsom’s letter will spark a new round of Air Force investigations into the crash, in hopes of mollifying Folsom. However, the report from this investigation will be classified at the highest level of security and not provided to RCA. Additionally, though the second investigation will find a strong likelihood of pilot error causing the crash, the Air Force will not admit any such findings to RCA. [Siegel, 2008, pp. 65-80] These accident reports will play a key role in the lawsuit filed against the US government by three widows of killed crew members (see June 21, 1949 and August 7-8, 1950).

June 21, 1949: B-29 ‘Banshee’ Widows Sue Government, Ask to See Accident Reports

Phyllis Brauner and Elizabeth Palya, who both lost their husbands in the “Project Banshee” B-29 crash (see October 6, 1948), file a civil action lawsuit against the US government in regards to the crash. The lawsuit claims that the US Air Force, in the person of the pilot and military crew members of the B-29, caused the deaths of their civilian husbands by “the negligence and wrongful acts and omissions of the officers and employees” of the US. The widows’ lawyer, Charles Biddle, asks the government for $300,000 per family. A third widow, Patricia Reynolds, will join the lawsuit in September 1949. One of the biggest issues surrounding the case is the lawsuit’s request that Biddle and his lawyers be given access to the official accident reports, which the government will claim cannot be revealed because they may contain classified information (see October 18, 1948 and August 7-8, 1950). Biddle’s promise that no one else will see the reports makes no impression on the government’s lawyers. [Siegel, 2008, pp. 100-101]

July 26, 1950: Judge Orders Accident Reports Given to Plaintiffs’ Lawyers; Air Force Refuses

A federal judge orders the Air Force to turn over copies of its classified accident reports about a B-29 crash (see October 6, 1948) as part of a lawsuit filed by three of the widows of crew members killed in the crash (see June 21, 1949). Claiming that the reports may contain classified information about a secret missile development project, Project Banshee, the Air Force not only refuses to turn over the accident reports to the widows’ lawyer, it refuses to allow even the attorney general to view the documents (see August 7-8, 1950). The lawyer for the widows, Charles Biddle, will continue to press for the release of the accident reports. [Siegel, 2008, pp. 120-123]

August 7-8, 1950: Justice Department Argues ‘National Security’ Trumps ‘Judicial Authority’ in Accident Report Argument

The Air Force refuses to meet the court-imposed deadline to turn over accident reports of a 1948 B-29 crash in Georgia (see October 6, 1948) to the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the government (see July 26, 1950). Instead, the Justice Department argues before the court that because the accident reports might contain “state secrets” that might imperil “national security” if made available to anyone outside the Air Force, the reports cannot be made available. “[T]he aircraft in question, together with the personnel on board, were engaged in a highly secret mission of the Air Force,” the government lawyers argue. “The airplane likewise carried confidential equipment on board and any disclosure of its mission or information concerning its operation or performance would be prejudicial to this department and would not be in the public interest.” Such a claim—that the production of the reports would “seriously hamper national security”—renders the reports “beyond judicial authority,” the Justice Department lawyers claim. [Siegel, 2008, pp. 124-126]

September 14, 1950: Air Force Reduces Classification Status of Disputed Accident Report

Weeks after the Justice Department refused to make accident reports of a 1948 B-29 crash (see October 6, 1948) available to the plaintiffs in an ongoing wrongful death lawsuit against the government (see July 26, 1950) because the reports are so highly classified that their disclosure might “seriously hamper national security” (see July 26, 1950 and August 7-8, 1950), the Air Force, in a routine review, drastically lowers the classification of the accident reports from top-level “Secret” to third-level “Restricted.” Whereas “Secret” documents supposedly contain information that “might endanger national security” if revealed, “Restricted” documents are “for official use only” and should not be disclosed “for reasons of administrative privacy.” The Air Force apparently no longer considers the documents a threat to national security. However, neither the plaintiffs’ lawyers, the judge hearing the lawsuit, or even the Justice Department lawyers are aware of the reports’ reduction in status. They continue to argue the merits of releasing the reports as if they are still highly classified. [Siegel, 2008, pp. 133]

September 21, 1950: Judge Orders Government to Give Him Classified Accident Reports, Government Refuses

Federal judge William H. Kirkpatrick rules that the US government must turn over the disputed, and supposedly highly classified (see September 14, 1950), accident reports from a 1948 B-29 crash (see October 6, 1948)—not to the plaintiffs in the lawsuit over the crash (see July 26, 1950), but to Kirkpatrick himself. He wishes to review the reports to determine if they contain any information that might threaten national security, and, before turning the documents over to the plaintiffs’ lawyers, will personally remove that information. In mid-October, when the government again refuses to turn over the documents, Kirkpatrick will find in favor of the plaintiffs (see October 12, 1950). [Siegel, 2008, pp. 133-134]

October 12, 1950: Judge Rules against Government in ‘Banshee’ Crash Lawsuit

Federal judge William H. Kirkpatrick rules in favor of the plaintiffs in a wrongful death lawsuit against the US government (see October 6, 1948, June 21, 1949, and July 26, 1950), after the government refuses to turn over classified accident reports that have a direct bearing on the plaintiffs’ case (see September 21, 1950). Judge Kirkpatrick orders the government to pay the plaintiffs, three widows who lost their husbands in a 1948 plane crash, a total of $225,000. The plaintiffs’ lawyer, Charles Biddle, expects the government to balk at paying out the money, and to instead continue to challenge the court’s attempt to compel it to turn over the accident reports (see October 19, 1951). [Siegel, 2008, pp. 134-139]

October 19, 1951: Government Appeals ‘Banshee’ Ruling, Argues that Judiciary Has No Right to See Classified Documents from Executive Branch

The government, represented by a team of Justice Department lawyers, appeals the recent ruling against it in the ‘Banshee’ B-29 plane crash lawsuit (see June 21, 1949). In the Third US Circuit Appeals Court, the government argues that the lower court had no business demanding that the Air Force turn over classified accident reports about the crash, because the reports may contain information that would potentially compromise national security (see October 12-18, 1948 and September 14, 1950). The government had twice defied court orders to produce the documents, and as a result had lost the lawsuit (see October 12, 1950). The Justice Department’s arguments come down to the assertion that the judiciary has no constitutional right to compel the executive branch to turn over documents it considers privileged. In 2008, author Barry Siegel will write, “For the first time in the B-29 litigation, the government directly argued that the judiciary could not review [the government’s] claim of privilege.” The lawyer for the plaintiffs, Charles Biddle, counters that the executive branch has no such sweeping claim of privilege, and that a judge should be allowed to review documents in dispute to determine both their bearing on a case and the possibility that releasing those documents could jeopardize national security (see September 21, 1950). Three weeks later, the appeals court will rule unanimously against the government (see December 11, 1951). [Siegel, 2008, pp. 149-153]

December 11, 1951: Appeals Court Rules that Executive Branch Cannot Overrule Judiciary in Claims of Privilege

A three-judge federal appeals court unanimously rejects the government’s claim of unfettered executive privilege and secrecy in regards to classified documents (see October 19, 1951). In an opinion written by Judge Albert Maris, the court finds that the government’s claim that the judiciary can never compel the executive branch to turn over classified documents to be without legal merit. The plaintiffs in the case, three widows who lost their husbands in the crash of a B-29 bomber carrying classified materials (see June 21, 1949), had a compelling need for the documents in question, the downed B-29 accident reports, to further their case, Maris writes (see October 12, 1950).
No Legal Basis for Claim of Privilege – Maris goes further than the parameters of the single lawsuit, writing: “[W]e regard the recognition of such a sweeping privilege… as contrary to a sound public policy. The present cases themselves indicate the breadth of the claim of immunity from disclosure which one government department head has already made. It is but a small step to assert a privilege against any disclosure of records merely because they might prove embarrassing to government officials. Indeed, it requires no great flight of imagination to realize that if the government’s contentions in these cases were affirmed, the privilege against disclosure might gradually be enlarged… until as is the case in some nations today, it embraced the whole range of government activities.… We need to recall in this connection the words of [Revolution-era jurist] Edward Livingston: ‘No nation ever yet found any inconvenience from too close an inspection into the conduct of its officers, but many have been brought to ruin, and reduced to slavery, by suffering gradual imposition and abuses, which were imperceptible, only because the means of publicity had not been secured.’” He also quotes Revolutionary War figure Patrick Henry, who said, “[T]o cover with the veil of secrecy the common routine of business is an abomination in the eyes of every intelligent man and every friend to his country.”
Rejecting Claim of ‘State Secrets’ – Maris is even less respectful of the government’s claim of a “state secrets” privilege. He notes that the government did not make that claim until well into the lawsuit proceedings (see October 19, 1951), indicating that it was a “fallback” argument used after the original government arguments had failed. Maris is also troubled, as author Barry Siegel later writes, in the government’s “assertion of unilateral executive power, free from judicial review, to decide what qualified as secret.” The lower court judge’s ruling that he alone should be given the documents for review adequately protected the government’s security interests, Maris writes: “[But] the government contends that it is within the sole province of the secretary of the Air Force to determine whether any privileged material is contained in the documents and that his determination of this question must be accepted by the district court without any independent consideration.… We cannot accede to this proposition. On the contrary, we are satisfied that a claim of privilege against disclosing evidence… involves a justiciable question, traditionally within the competence of the courts.… To hold that the head of an executive department of the government in a [law]suit to which the United States is a party may conclusively determine the government’s claim of privilege is to abdicate the judicial function to infringe the independent province of the judiciary as laid down by the Constitution.”
Fundamental Principle of Checks and Balances – Maris continues: “The government of the United States is one of checks and balances. One of the principal checks is furnished by the independent judiciary which the Constitution established. Neither the executive nor the legislative branch of the government may constitutionally encroach upon the field which the Constitution has reserved for the judiciary.… Nor is there any danger to the public interest in submitting the question of privilege to the decision of the courts. The judges of the United States are public officers whose responsibilities under the Constitution is just as great as that of the heads of the executive departments.”
Government Appeal – The Justice Department will appeal the ruling to the US Supreme Court (see March 1952 and March 9, 1953). [Siegel, 2008, pp. 153-156]

March 1952: Government Appeals ‘Banshee’ Ruling to Supreme Court, Argues for Claims of Executive Privilege

The Justice Department appeals the ruling of the US Appeals Court in the B-29 “Banshee” case (see December 11, 1951). The appellate judges found that the executive branch of government could not unilaterally refuse to hand over classified documents requested during the course of a trial, and justify its decision merely by its own say-so (see October 12, 1950). Solicitor General Philip Perlman argues that the appellate ruling erroneously interprets the law “so as to permit encroachments by the judiciary on an area committed by the Constitution to executive discretion.” The claim of “state secrets,” “executive privilege,” and, ultimately, “national security” must trump judicial concerns, Perlman argues, and he goes on to say that the judiciary should not be allowed to “substitute its judgment for the judgment of the executive.” The case will be labeled United States of America v. Patricia Reynolds, Phyllis Brauner, and Elizabeth Palya, and will usually be shortened to the more colloquial US v. Reynolds.
The Vinson Court – In 2008, author Barry Siegel, in his book Claim of Privilege, will note that the recent ascension of Fred Vinson as the Supreme Court’s Chief Justice does not bode well for the plaintiffs in the case. President Truman placed Vinson, whom Siegel calls Truman’s “poker and drinking buddy,” as Chief Justice to try to achieve consensus between the two contentious blocs of justices on the Court. Siegel notes that Vinson is widely considered an intellectual and legal lightweight, with a tendency to take the side of the government on issues in which he lacks a full understanding. Siegel will write that in many instances, Vinson functions “as part of the executive branch.”
‘Dennis’ Case Preview of Court’s Tendency to Favor Executive Branch – Vinson had written the opinion in a 1951 ruling, Dennis et al v. United States, where the Court had upheld a lower court ruling that twelve acknowledged American Communists were sent to jail under the Smith Act—not for breaking the law, but for “teaching and advocating,” in the words of the original indictment. Siegel will call that ruling “the nadir of the Vinson Court.” According to Siegel, the Dennis ruling showed the Court’s predisposition to give the government, and particularly the executive branch, plenty of leeway in its findings in subsequent cases such as Reynolds. [Siegel, 2008, pp. 157-162]

October 21, 1952: Supreme Court Hears Opening Arguments in ‘US v Reynolds’

Lawyers make their opening arguments before the Supreme Court in the case of US v Reynolds, the lawsuit that finds the government had no overarching right to unilaterally refuse to deliver classified documents in the course of a wrongful death lawsuit against the government (see December 11, 1951). The government has appealed the appellate court ruling to the Supreme Court (see March 1952). Because four of the nine justices had voted not to hear the case—in essence to let the appellate court ruling stand—the defense is cautiously optimistic about the Court’s decision.
Judiciary Has No Right to Interfere with Powers of the Executive, Government Argues – Acting Solicitor General Robert Stern tells the Court that the appellate judges’ decision, written by Judge Albert Maris, “is an unwarranted interference with the powers of the executive,” and that the decision forced the government to choose “whether to disclose public documents contrary to the public interest [or] to suffer the public treasury to be penalized” (a reference to the decision to award the plaintiffs monetary damages—see October 12, 1950). The judiciary “lack[s] power to compel disclosure by means of a direct demand [as well as] by the indirect method of an order against the United States, resulting in judgment when compliance is not forthcoming.”
Executive Has No Right to Unilaterally Withhold Information, Defense Counters – Stern’s arguments are countered by those of the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Charles Biddle, who writes, “We could rest our case with confidence on the clear opinion of Judge Maris,” but continues by arguing that if the government asserts a claim of executive privilege on the basis of national security, it must make the documents available to the Court for adjudication, or at least provide enough information for the Court to judge whether the documents present in fact a threat to national security if disclosed. This is particularly true, Biddle argues, “where there is no showing that the documents in question contain any military secret” (Biddle is unaware that the documents’ classification status had been reduced two years before—see September 14, 1950). “The basic question here is whether those in charge of the various departments of the government may refuse to produce documents properly demanded… in a case where the government is a party (see June 21, 1949), simply because the officials themselves think it would be better to keep them secret, and this without the Courts having any power to question the propriety of such decision.… In other words, say the officials, we will tell you only what we think it is in the public interest that you should know. And furthermore, we may withhold information not only about military or diplomatic secrets, but we may also suppress documents which concern merely the operation of the particular department if we believe it would be best, for purposes of efficiency or morale, that no one outside of the department, not even the Court, should see them.”
No Basis for Claims of Military Secrets – Biddle argues that because of responses he has received to his demands over the course of this lawsuit, he is relatively sure there are no military secrets contained within them. “[T]he proof is to the contrary,” he says, and goes on to say that had the Air Force disclosed from the outset that the plane crash, the fatal accident that sparked the original lawsuit (see October 6, 1948), was probably caused by pilot error and not by random chance, the plaintiffs may have never needed to ask for the disclosure of the documents in question, the accident reports on the crash (see October 18, 1948). “The secretary [of the Air Force]‘s formal claim of privilege said that the plane at the time was engaged in a secret mission and that it carried confidential equipment,” Biddle says, “but nowhere was it asserted that either had anything to do with the accident. The whole purpose of the demand by the respondents was for the purpose of finding out what caused the accident.… They were not in the least interested in the secret mission or equipment.” [Siegel, 2008, pp. 165-170]

October 25, 1952: Supreme Court Justices Lean towards Affirming Executive Powers in ‘US v Reynolds’

In their regular Saturday conference, the nine Supreme Court justices discuss the issues and arguments surrounding US v Reynolds (see October 21, 1952). According to the notes from the discussion, Chief Justice Fred Vinson, a strong advocate for expansive executive powers (see March 1952), says the case “boils down to Executive Branch determine privilege.” Other notes by Justice William O. Douglas suggest that Vinson isn’t convinced that the US must “be forced to pay for exercising its privilege” (see October 12, 1950). A straw vote taken at the end of the discussion shows five justices in favor of the government’s position to unilaterally withhold classified documents—overturning the appellate court decision (see December 11, 1951), and four in favor of allowing the decision to stand. [Siegel, 2008, pp. 171]

March 9, 1953: Supreme Court Creates ‘State Secrets’ Privilege in Ruling

The US Supreme Court upholds the power of the federal government’s executive branch to withhold documents from a civil suit on the basis of executive privilege and national security (see October 25, 1952). The case, US v Reynolds, overturns an appellate court decision that found against the government (see December 11, 1951). Originally split 5-4 on the decision, the Court goes to 6-3 when Justice William O. Douglas joins the majority. The three dissenters, Justices Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, and Robert Jackson, refuse to write a dissenting opinion, instead adopting the decision of the appellate court as their dissent.
‘State Secrets’ a Valid Reason for Keeping Documents out of Judicial, Public Eye – Chief Justice Fred Vinson writes the majority opinion. Vinson refuses to grant the executive branch the near-unlimited power to withhold documents from judicial review, as the government’s arguments before the court implied (see October 21, 1952), but instead finds what he calls a “narrower ground for defense” in the Tort Claims Act, which compels the production of documents before a court only if they are designated “not privileged.” The government’s claim of privilege in the Reynolds case was valid, Vinson writes. But the ruling goes farther; Vinson upholds the claim of “state secrets” as a reason for withholding documents from judicial review or public scrutiny. In 2008, author Barry Siegel will write: “In truth, only now was the Supreme Court formally recognizing the privilege, giving the government the precedent it sought, a precedent binding on all courts throughout the nation. Most important, the Court was also—for the first time—spelling out how the privilege should be applied.” Siegel will call the Reynolds ruling “an effort to weigh competing legitimate interests,” but the ruling does not allow judges to see the documents in order to make a decision about their applicability in a court case: “By instructing judges not to insist upon examining documents if the government can satisfy that ‘a reasonable danger’ to national security exists, Vinson was asking jurists to fly blind.” Siegel will mark the decision as “an act of faith. We must believe the government,” he will write, “when it claims [the accident] would reveal state secrets. We must trust that the government is telling the truth.”
Time of Heightened Tensions Drives Need for Secrecy – Vinson goes on to note, “[W]e cannot escape judicial notice that this is a time of vigorous preparation for the national defense.” Locked in the Cold War with the Soviet Union, and fighting a war in Korea, the US is, Vinson writes, in a time of crisis, and one where military secrets must be kept and even encouraged. [U. S. v. Reynolds, 3/9/1953; Siegel, 2008, pp. 171-176]
Future Ramifications – Reflecting on the decision in 2008, Siegel will write that while the case will not become as well known as many other Court decisions, it will wield significant influence. The ruling “formally recognized and established the framework for the government’s ‘state secrets’ privilege—a privilege that for decades had enabled federal agencies to conceal conduct, withhold documents, and block civil litigation, all in the name of national secrecy.… By encouraging judicial deference when the government claimed national security secrets, Reynolds had empowered the Executive Branch in myriad ways. Among other things, it had provided a fundamental legal argument for much of the Bush administration’s response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Enemy combatants such as Yaser Esam Hamdi (see December 2001) and Jose Padilla (see June 10, 2002), for many months confined without access to lawyers, had felt the breath of Reynolds. So had the accused terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui when federal prosecutors defied a court order allowing him access to other accused terrorists (see March 22, 2005). So had the Syrian-Canadian Maher Arar (see September 26, 2002), like dozens of others the subject of a CIA extraordinary rendition to a secret foreign prison (see After September 11, 2001). So had hundreds of detainees at the US Navy Base at Guantanamo Bay, held without charges or judicial review (see September 27, 2001). So had millions of American citizens, when President Bush, without judicial knowledge or approval, authorized domestic eavesdropping by the National Security Agency (see Early 2002). US v. Reynolds made all this possible. The bedrock of national security law, it had provided a way for the Executive Branch to formalize an unprecedented power and immunity, to pull a veil of secrecy over its actions.” [Siegel, 2008, pp. ix-x]

December 1980: Court Rules that ‘State Secrets’ Privilege Disallows Civilians from Obtaining Non-Classified Information

A federal court rules that because of the government’s “state secrets” privilege (see March 9, 1953), a civilian plaintiff suing the US Navy over a contractual agreement cannot even access “non-privileged,” or unclassified, information from the Navy because to do so might “threaten disclosure” of material that goes against “the overriding interest of the United States… preservation of its state secrets privilege precludes any further attempt to pursue litigation.” [Siegel, 2008, pp. 196-197]

September 1982: Courts Uphold ‘State Secrets’ Privilege

In the second of two rulings in the case of Halkin v Helms, the judiciary comes down squarely on the side of the US government against charges of illegal surveillance and wiretapping leveled against American anti-war protesters. The district and appellate courts uphold the federal government’s “state secrets” claim as codified in US v Reynolds (see March 9, 1953), thereby denying the plaintiffs the right to see government information that they claim would prove their case. The DC Court of Appeals writes that the federal courts do not have any constitutional role as “continuing monitors of the wisdom and soundness of Executive action,” and instead the courts “should accord utmost deference to executive assertions of privilege on grounds of military or diplomatic secrets… courts need only be satisfied that there is a reasonable danger” that military secrets might be exposed. [Siegel, 2008, pp. 196-196]

November 1984: Court Broadens State Secrets Privilege

The DC Court of Appeals rejects a claim by civilian plaintiffs to force the government to disclose classified information as part of a lawsuit, citing the “state secrets” privilege (see March 9, 1953). Furthermore, the court broadens the definition of “state secrets” to include “disclosure of intelligence-gathering methods or capabilities and disruption of diplomatic relations.” [Siegel, 2008, pp. 197]

January 1990: FBI’s Investigation of Child’s School Project Upheld

A lawsuit against the FBI’s investigation of a sixth-grade boy and his school project to create an “encyclopedia of the world” is stopped when an appeals court rules that the agency is shielded by the “state secrets” privilege (see March 9, 1953). Unable to secure information from the FBI as to why it investigated him, the child had therefore “failed to sustain his burden of proof [and] the cause of action was properly dismissed.” [Siegel, 2008, pp. 197]

June 13, 1991: Court Refuses to Allow Estate of Slain Sailor to Pursue Lawsuit against Military Contractors, Citing ‘State Secrets’

A US appellate court refuses to find a number of military contractors liable in the death of Earl Patton Ryals, who died with 36 of his fellow crewmen in the Iraqi attack on the USS Stark (see May 17, 1987 and After). Ryals’s estate claims that he and his fellows died in part because of negligence on the part of the contractors who designed, manufactured, tested, and marketed the weapons system on board the Stark, including the Phalanx anti-missile system. In turning down the estate’s claim, the court cites the government’s “state secrets” privilege (see March 9, 1953), saying that the facts of the issue could not be resolved without examining classified Navy documents. And even without this reason, the court rules, Ryals’s estate cannot see the documents because the case presents “a political question” about military decision-making that is not subject to judicial review. [Zuckerbraun v. General Dynamics Corp., 6/13/1991; Siegel, 2008, pp. 197-198] A year later, a similar case will be dismissed on the grounds that a trial might conceivably reveal “state secrets” (see September 16, 1992).

September 16, 1992: Court Dismisses Lawsuit because of Risk of Disclosure of ‘State Secrets’

A federal appeals court upholds the dismissal of a lawsuit filed on behalf of 23 Navy sailors killed in the attack on the USS Stark (see May 17, 1987 and After) against a number of defense contractors. A similar lawsuit on behalf of one of the sailors killed in the attack was dismissed a year before (see June 13, 1991). This time the plaintiffs file over 2,500 pages of unclassified documentary evidence supporting their claims that the contractors were negligent in their design and implementation of the weapons systems aboard the Stark. The appeals court finds that regardless of the amount of evidence entered, to allow the trial would be to potentially infringe on the US government’s “state secrets” privilege (see March 9, 1953). “[N]o amount of effort could safeguard the privileged information,” the court rules. The court adds that “classified and unclassified information cannot always be separated, and therefore courts must restrict access not only to classified material, but to “those pieces of evidence” that “press so closely upon highly sensitive material that they create a hgh risk of inadvertent or indirect disclosures.” [Siegel, 2008, pp. 198]

January 1996: Air Force Declassifies ‘Banshee’ Accident Report

Sheila E. Witnall, the secretary of the Air Force, declassifies all Air Force accident reports prior to January 25, 1956. The declassification includes the 1948 crash of the B-29 bomber that killed nine of 13 crew members during a secret “Project Banshee” mission (see October 6, 1948). The formerly classified reports had been at the heart of the case of US v Reynolds (see March 9, 1953) that sparked the so-called “state secrets” privilege. Four years after the declassification, the daughter of one of the slain civilians on board, Judy Palya Loether, finds the accident report on the Internet; the discovery spurs her to begin looking into the circumstances of her father’s death, and ultimately will result in a second lawsuit being filed on behalf of the families of the slain crewmen (see February 26, 2003). [Siegel, 2008, pp. 205-208]

February 2000: Daughter of Crash Victim Obtains Declassified Accident Reports, Realizes No Secret Information Included

Judy Palya Loether, the daughter of a civilian engineer killed in a 1948 plane crash while on a secret government mission (see October 6, 1948), reads over the voluminous reports of the accident that claimed her father’s life. The reports, now declassified (see January 1996), had been at the heart of a landmark lawsuit that gave judicial recognition to the government’s “state secrets” privilege (see March 9, 1953). Loether is shocked to find that the reports contain nothing that could be construed as military or tactical secrets of any kind, though for decades the government has insisted that they could not be revealed, even to a judge (see October 18, 1948, July 26, 1950, August 7-8, 1950, September 21, 1950, and October 19, 1951). What they do contain is a compendium of witness statements and expert findings that indicate a number of mistakes and errors led to the crash. Loether begins contacting the families of the widows who had filed the original lawsuit against the government (seeJune 21, 1949) to share her findings. [Siegel, 2008, pp. 210-211] Loether is confused and angered over the contents of the reports, and the government’s response to the lawsuit. She cannot understand why the government pressed so hard to keep the reports classified, knowing that they contained no sensitive information about the secret missile program, and is particularly troubled by the fact that at least two senior government officials signed affidavits affirming the reports’ inclusion of such information while knowing that the reports contained nothing of the sort. She wonders if government officials had perhaps decided to lie about the reports in order to establish some sort of state secrets privilege. In September 2002, lawyers Wilson Brown and Jeff Almeida, retained by Loether and others who lost family members in the crash, come to the same conclusion. As Almeida will say to Brown: “I’ve read this report. There’s nothing in there.” [Siegel, 2008, pp. 219] As time goes on, Loether and her colleagues files a second lawsuit seeking to overturn the first Supreme Court verdict (see February 26, 2003).

February 26, 2003: Families of Slain Civilians in ‘Reynolds’ Case Ask Supreme Court to ‘Remedy Fraud’ of Original Verdict

Lawyers Wilson Brown and Jeff Almeida file a request with the Supreme Court, asking it to reconsider its landmark 1953 case, US v Reynolds (see March 9, 1953). The lawyers are representing several family members who lost fathers (and, in one case, a husband) in the airplane crash that led to the original case (see October 6, 1948). The lawyers note that the government’s original claim that the accident reports could not be released due to the inclusion of “military secrets” (see July 26, 1950) is false, as the accident reports have been declassified and examined for such secrets (see February 2000). “Indeed,” the lawyers write, “they are no more than accounts of a flight that, due to the Air Force’s negligence, went tragically awry. In telling the Court otherwise, the Air Force lied. In reliance upon that lie, the Court deprived the widows [the three original plaintiffs] of their judgments. It is for this Court, through issuance of a writ of error coram nobis and in exercise of its inherent power to remedy fraud, to put things right… United States v. Reynolds stands as a classic ‘fraud on the court,’ one that is most remarkable because it succeeded in tainting a decision of our nation’s highest tribunal.” [Siegel, 2008, pp. 249-251] On July 26, 2002, one of the plaintiffs, Judy Palya Loether, wrote in an e-mail to Brown: ”US v Reynolds has come to be a landmark case that is used by the government when it claims that documents cannot be turned over to the courts because of national security. Yet this very case is now proven, in my mind, to be based on a lie that did injury to 3 widows and 5 little children (see February 2000)… It allowed the government an area of no checks and balances (see December 11, 1951). How many times has the government used this decision, not to protect national security, but for its own purposes?” [Siegel, 2008, pp. 237-238]

March 18, 2003: White House Asks for Copy of ‘Reynolds’ Petition

Wilson Brown, who has filed a petition with the Supreme Court asking that it reconsider its landmark 1953 US v Reynolds case (see March 9, 1953), receives an e-mail from Alison Massagli of the White House’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. Massagli, who learned of the petition from an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer, wants a copy of Brown’s petition. Brown notices that Massagli sent a copy of the e-mail to Catherine Lotrionete of the National Security Council. Brown is pleased that the case has garnered some attention. He e-mails the plaintiffs he is representing, saying, “I thought you would find it interesting that at least one arm of the Executive Branch is interested in our case.” [Siegel, 2008, pp. 257]

May 30, 2003: Bush Administration Asks Supreme Court to Dismiss Petition to Rehear ‘Reynolds’ Case

Solicitor General Theodore Olson submits a response to the request that the Supreme Court reopen the 1953 state secrets case US v Reynolds (see February 26, 2003). Olson argues that once a decision has been made, it should be respected—“the law favors finality,” he writes. More surprisingly to the plaintiffs and their lawyers, Olson argues that there was no fraud perpetuated in the original case, a position hard to defend in the face of the declassified accident reports that were the heart of that case (see February 2000 and February 26, 2003). The accident reports never contained military secrets or secret information of any kind, a claim that the Court’s 1953 decision hinged on, but Olson argues that because of the wording of the claims—releasing the reports to the original plaintiffs “might lead to disclosure” of classified information—then the old claims of protecting state secrets are still technically valid (see March 9, 1953). Olson echoes the author of the original Supreme Court opinion, Fred Vinson, by reminding the Court that “[t]he claim of privilege in this case was made in 1950, at a time in the nation’s history—during the twilight of World War II and the dawn of the Cold War—when the country, and especially the military, was uniquely sensitive to need for ‘vigorous preparation for national defense.‘… The allegations of fraud made by the petition in this case… must be viewed in that light.” The lawyer for the plaintiffs in the petition, Wilson Brown, is both angered and impressed by what he calls Olson’s “remarkable obfuscation.” By hiding behind the vague wording of the original claims of state secrets, Olson is implying that this case must turn on factual issues—and therefore should be heard in a lower court, not the Supreme Court. Brown, in his response co-written by colleague Jeff Almeida, calls Olson’s arguments “disingenuous” and insists that the plaintiffs’ original case “had been vitiated through fraud.” [Siegel, 2008, pp. 261-264]

June 2003: Supreme Court Unlikely to Reopen ‘Reynolds’ Case, Experts Believe

Constitutional lawyers and experts believe that the Supreme Court will not accept the petition to reopen the landmark US v Reynolds case (see February 26, 2003 and May 30, 2003). Kate Martin of the Center for National Security Studies says that the petition is essentially frivolous, and says of the claim that Reynolds was decided on the basis of a fraudulent government presentation: “That the facts of the original case are not true is irrelevant to the state secrets privilege (see March 9, 1953). The idea that it undercuts the privilege is ridiculous. Often in cases, after they’re decided, the facts are proven not to be true. That’s the nature of the legal system. Sometimes people lie. Sometimes there’s new information.” Law professor Jonathan Turley is more sympathetic to the petition, but agrees that the Supreme Court will probably not hear it: “For the Supreme Court to address the fact clearly that it had been lied to would open difficult issues.… The Court used the facts of Reynolds to say the government could be trusted.… Reynolds was based on trust, on willful blinders. There’s much danger in going back now, in recognizing that the government routinely lies. They’re not going to face that. They won’t reopen this. I think Reynolds is like discovering an unfaithful wife after fifty years of marriage. You’re hurt by the betrayal, but you can’t turn back half a century. You preserve the marriage for the children’s sake” (see December 1980, September 1982, November 1984, January 1990, June 13, 1991, and September 16, 1992). [Siegel, 2008, pp. 266-267]

June 23, 2003: Supreme Court Refuses to Reopen ‘Reynolds’

The Supreme Court refuses to hear a petition to reopen the 1953 state secrets case US v Reynolds (see February 26, 2003). It issues a one-sentence ruling: “The motion for leave to file a writ of error coram nobis is denied.” Plaintiff Judy Palya Loether says: “Maybe the law isn’t about right or wrong. The concept that the government lied to the Supreme Court (see February 2000) seemed to me a terrible thing to do. It appears that the justices were not as appalled as I was.” Further attempts to reopen the case in lower courts will also fail. [Siegel, 2008, pp. 267-298]

November 2003: Lawyers for Terrorist Suspect Inquire about ‘Reynolds’ Reopening

Lawyers for accused terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui, battling to force the US government to allow them to depose other accused terrorists as part of their defense (see May 14, 2003), contact Jeff Almeida, the lawyer for the plaintiffs who sought to reopen the 1953 state secrets case US v Reynolds. They ask how his petition for coram nobis—a request for the court to “right a wrong”—went. Almeida tells them that the Court turned the petition down without comment (see June 23, 2003). Moussaoui’s lawyers tell Almeida that the government prosecutors were so reliant on Reynolds that “they had been waving it around the courtroom any chance they got.” Plaintiff Susan Brauner later says that she is glad Moussaoui’s lawyers contacted Almeida, and says she finds their interest “most encouraging.” She will add, “If we eventually walk away with nothing more than one concrete example where the case was of possible use to someone else… then I will believe we have done some good in impacting or at least raising the issue.” [Siegel, 2008, pp. 272-273]

Late May, 2006: Bush Administration Seeks Dismissal of Lawsuit on ‘State Secrets’ Grounds

The Bush administration submits a legal brief arguing that the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s lawsuit against AT&T, alleging that firm cooperated with the NSA’s domestic surveillance program (see January 31, 2006), should be thrown out of court because of the government’s “state secrets” privilege (see March 9, 1953). Justice Department lawyers want Judge Vaughn Walker to examine classified documents that they say will convince him to dismiss the lawsuit. However, the government does not want the defense lawyers to see that material. “No aspect of this case can be litigated without disclosing state secrets,” the government argues. “The United States has not lightly invoked the state secrets privilege, and the weighty reasons for asserting the privilege are apparent from the classified material submitted in support of its assertion.” [CNET News, 5/26/2006]

February 2, 2009: Attorney General Nominee Says He Will Review Bush Uses of ‘State Secrets’ Privilege, Curtail Use in Obama Administration

Attorney General-nominee Eric Holder says that if he is confirmed, he intends to review current litigation in which the Bush administration asserted the so-called “state secrets” privilege (see March 9, 1953), and that he intends to minimize the use of the privilege during his tenure. “I will review significant pending cases in which DOJ [the Justice Department] has invoked the state secrets privilege, and will work with leaders in other agencies and professionals at the Department of Justice to ensure that the United States invokes the state secrets privilege only in legally appropriate situations,” he writes in a response to pre-confirmation questions. (Shortly after Holder’s testimony, the Justice Department again asserts the “state secrets” privilege in a case involving a Guantanamo detainee—see February 9, 2009). Holder adds: “I firmly believe that transparency is a key to good government. Openness allows the public to have faith that its government obeys the law.” To a related question, he asserts his belief that the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) must disclose as many of the opinions it generates as possible: “Once the new assistant attorney general in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel is confirmed, I plan to instruct that official to review the OLC’s policies relating to publication of its opinions with the [objective] of making its opinions available to the maximum extent consistent with sound practice and competing concerns.” [Federation of American Scientists, 2/2/2009; Senate Judiciary Committee, 2/2/2009] Weeks later, the Justice Department will release nine controversial OLC memos from the Bush administration (see March 2, 2009).

February 9, 2009: Obama Justice Department Continues to Assert State Secrets Privilege in Detainee Lawsuit

A Justice Department official says that the Obama administration will continue to assert the so-called “state secrets privilege” (see March 9, 1953) in a lawsuit filed by Guantanamo detainee Binyam Mohamed (see February 8, 2009). In the case Mohamed et al v Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc, Mohamed and four former detainees are suing a Boeing subsidiary, Jeppesen Dataplan, for cooperating with the CIA in subjecting them to “extraordinary rendition,” flying them to foreign countries and secret overseas CIA prisons where, they say, they were tortured. The case was thrown out a year ago, but the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has appealed it. According to a source inside the Ninth US District Court, a Justice Department lawyer tells the presiding judge that its position has not changed, that the new administration stands behind arguments that the previous administration made, with no ambiguity at all. The lawyer says the entire subject matter remains a state secret. According to Justice Department spokesman Matt Miller, “It is the policy of this administration to invoke the state secrets privilege only when necessary and in the most appropriate cases, consistent with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Reynolds that the privilege not ‘be lightly invoked.’” Miller adds that Attorney General Eric Holder is conducting a review of all state secret privilege matters. “The Attorney General has directed that senior Justice Department officials review all assertions of the State Secrets privilege to ensure that the privilege is being invoked only in legally appropriate situations,” Miller says. “It is vital that we protect information that, if released, could jeopardize national security. The Justice Department will ensure the privilege is not invoked to hide from the American people information about their government’s actions that they have a right to know. This administration will be transparent and open, consistent with our national security obligations.” The ACLU’s Anthony Romero says that the Obama administration is doing little besides offering “more of the same.” He continues: “Eric Holder’s Justice Department stood up in court today and said that it would continue the Bush policy of invoking state secrets to hide the reprehensible history of torture, rendition, and the most grievous human rights violations committed by the American government. This is not change. This is definitely more of the same. Candidate Obama ran on a platform that would reform the abuse of state secrets, but President Obama’s Justice Department has disappointingly reneged on that important civil liberties issue. If this is a harbinger of things to come, it will be a long and arduous road to give us back an America we can be proud of again.” ACLU attorney Ben Wizner, who argued the case for Mohamed and the other plaintiffs, adds: “We are shocked and deeply disappointed that the Justice Department has chosen to continue the Bush administration’s practice of dodging judicial scrutiny of extraordinary rendition and torture. This was an opportunity for the new administration to act on its condemnation of torture and rendition, but instead it has chosen to stay the course. Now we must hope that the court will assert its independence by rejecting the government’s false claims of state secrets and allowing the victims of torture and rendition their day in court.” [ABC News, 2/9/2009]

February 27, 2009: Appeals Court Rejects ‘State Secrets’ Argument in Wiretapping Case

A federal appeals court rejects the Obama administration’s assertion that a potential threat to national security should stop a lawsuit challenging the government’s warrantless wiretapping program. The Justice Department had requested an emergency stay in a case brought by a defunct Islamic charity, the Al Haramain Islamic Foundation (see February 28, 2006). Al Haramain has asked that classified information be made available to the court to prove its case that the electronic surveillance brought to bear against it by the government was illegal; Justice Department lawyers contend that the information needs to remain classified and unavailable to the court, and cite the “state secrets” privilege (see March 9, 1953) as legal justification. Although the court rejects the request for the stay, Justice Department lawyers say they will continue fighting to keep the information secret. “The government respectfully requests that the court refrain from further actions to provide plaintiffs with access to classified information,” says a filing made by the Justice Department in regards to the ruling. A lawyer for Al Haramain, Steven Goldberg, says: “All we wanted was our day in court and it looks like we’re finally going to get our day in court. This case is all about challenging an assertion of power by the executive branch which is extraordinary.” The American Civil Liberties Union’s Ann Brick says the court has now crafted a way to review the issue in which “national security isn’t put at risk, but the rule of law can still be observed.” [Associated Press, 2/27/2009] Days later, the Justice Department will file a brief announcing its intention to refuse to honor the appeals court’s decision (see March 2, 2009).

March 2, 2009: Justice Department Refuses to Comply with Order to Turn over Evidence in Wiretapping Suit

The Justice Department defies a recent court order (see February 27, 2009) and refuses to provide a document that might prove the Bush administration conducted illegal wiretaps on a now-defunct Islamic charity. The Justice Department files a brief with a California federal district court challenging the court’s right to carry out its own decision to make that evidence available in a pending lawsuit. Even though the document is critical to the lawsuit, the lawyers can obtain the necessary top-secret clearances, and the document would not be made public, the Justice Department claims that the document cannot be entered into evidence. The lawyers for Al Haramain, the Islamic charity and the plaintiffs in the suit, calls the Justice Department’s decision “mind-boggling.”
Government’s Position – For its part, the Justice Department writes in a brief that the decision to release the document “is committed to the discretion of the executive branch, and is not subject to judicial review.” The document has been in the possession of the court since 2004, when the government inadvertently released it to the plaintiffs. In the same brief, the Justice Department writes: “If the Court intends to itself grant access to classified information directly to the plaintiffs’ counsel, the government requests that the Court again provide advance notice of any such order, as well as an ex parte, in camera description of the information it intends to disclose, to enable the government to either make its own determination about whether counsel has a need to know, or to withdraw that information from submission to the Court and use in this case. If the Court rejects either action by the government, the government again requests that the Court stay proceedings while the government considers whether to appeal any such order.” The statement is an implied threat that the Justice Department lawyers will themselves physically remove the document from the court files if the judge says he has the right to allow Al Haramain’s lawyers to see it.
Response from Plaintiff’s Attorney – Jon Eisenberg, a lawyer for Al-Haramain, says in an e-mail: “It’s a not-so-thinly veiled threat to send executive branch authorities (the FBI? the Army?) to Judge [Virginia] Walker’s chambers to seize the classified material from his files! In my view, that would be an unprecedented violation of the constitutional separation of powers. I doubt anything like it has happened in the history of this country.” Eisenberg says that the Obama administration, through the Justice Department, “seems to be provoking a separation-of-powers confrontation with Judge Walker.”
Administration’s Second Use of State Secrets – This is the second time the Obama administration has invoked the “state secrets” privilege to keep information secret (see February 9, 2009). Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) says: “In the Bush administration, the state secrets doctrine was used to buttress the power of the president and make it difficult if not impossible to contest such issues as presidential authority to conduct warrantless wiretapping in the United States. We would think that when such disagreements occur, it’s properly before the judiciary to resolve them. But the Bush administration asserted the state secrets doctrine for the purpose of making it effectively impossible for courts to review the matter.” The Al Haramain case is significant because of “the apparent willingness of the Obama administration’s Justice Department to carry further that same argument in federal court. It is of great concern.” [Washington Independent, 3/2/2009]

February 24, 2012 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

High Noon and the West Coast Docks

By Daniel Borgström | Dissident Voice | February 24th, 2012

High Noon is a 1952 morality play about people deciding whether or not to stand up to the forces of corruption and criminality. Scenes from it often come to mind, since I’ve repeatedly seen people around me facing up to analogous situations here in Oakland, at the docks and also in the plaza.

The setting for this movie is a western town around 1880, and the bad guy, Frank Miller, has just been released from prison. He’s a nasty, hands-on, in-charge figure who previously controlled everything that went on in the town. He’ll be returning on the noon train, and the townspeople will either have to stop him, or else resign themselves to living under his corrupt tyranny.

Such scenes were part of the real life of the screenwriter, Carl Foreman, formerly a member of the Communist Party. Being a leftwing activist was not easy. In the 1930′s he and his comrades walked picket lines under the threat of being clubbed or shot by police and company thugs. Although he was no longer a member of the Communist Party, he was nevertheless later targeted by the vengeful one-percenters and their Congressmen. In 1951, while he was writing the script for High Noon, he was summoned to appear before HUAC and name names. He refused and was therefore blacklisted by the Hollywood studio bosses. The movie was, Foreman later said, “a parable of what was happening in Hollywood.”

This movie, made in the early 1950s and set in a small frontier town of the previous century, presents a relatively simple world where solutions are uncomplicated. The characters are well-defined and the dialogue is concise. The answer to the question posed by the movie, as the theme song puts it, is “to shoot Frank Miller dead.”

Will Kane, the town marshal, is stuck with the task of dealing with Miller and his trio of gunslingers. It’ll be four against one, a very uneven fight, unless Kane can muster up a bunch of people to join him in the battle. It’s Sunday morning, so Kane goes to the church to interrupt the service to ask for volunteers. As he enters, the choir is singing “Battle Hymn of the Republic,” and they’re on the verse that goes: “He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgement seat.” In the course of the movie, all the people in the town get sifted as they decide to fight or give in to the bad guy.

Life and art often follow the same script. I remember a scene here in the East Bay, shortly after the police had attacked antiwar protesters at the Port of Oakland, injuring fifty-nine people including demonstrators, longshoremen, and journalists. That was in April 2003. The message from the police, the shipping companies, and the mayor was very clear: “Don’t ever set foot in the port again! Don’t even think of it!”

Our 1st Amendment rights were at stake. A rally was held at the Oakland Plaza to protest the police violence. Each speaker spoke his or her piece, leading up to the last speaker, Sasha Wright, who said: “We’re thinking of returning to the Port to shut it down. If we do, how many of you would go with us?”

I stood there, thinking at the time how much this resembled a scene from High Noon, and was moved to see a substantial show of hands. Five weeks after the attack, on May 12, 2003, several hundred people marched back into the Port of Oakland and set up a picket line at the terminal where people had been attacked and injured. Thus the First Amendment rights of the community were reaffirmed; it was an amazing experience, an amazing day to be alive.

But that’s not at all how the movie script goes. When the protagonist Will Kane appeals to the townspeople, they find reasons to decline. They rationalize. Bad Guy Miller isn’t all that bad, they seem to conclude. They can reason with him, work things out. Some are afraid of him, while others actually seem to be in cahoots with him.

Will Kane is on his own. And because this is a 1950s western, the hero always wins, no matter what the odds. Then, after having won, he looks scornfully at the cowardly, opportunistic, and undeserving townspeople and leaves in disgust. That’s how it ends.

The ending seems simplistic, the weak part of an otherwise excellent script. In reality, there are often at least a few brave men and women who’ll join together in standing up to the bad guys, to the Frank Millers of this world. That I saw back in 2003, and again last fall (2011), when perhaps a hundred Occupiers linked arms at the Oakland Plaza on the morning of October 25th. And again that afternoon, and in the days that followed. People faced those dangers together, even though several were injured. Scott Olsen was injured critically.

Tens of thousands took part in the port shutdowns of November 2nd and December 12th — despite rumors and fears of more police violence.

Those actions energized rank-and-file workers in their struggles against the one percent, most notably the embattled dockworkers in the small town of Longview, Washington. ILWU Local 21 President Dan Coffman of Longview told Occupy Oakland, “You cannot believe what you people did [on November 2] for the inspiration of my union members who have been on the picket line for six months.”

The outcome of the battle on that relatively small stretch of waterfront on the Columbia River would probably determine the future of the longshore union on the West Coast. Both sides turned to allies. The union-busting shipping company EGT had the backing of the police, and the Obama Administration was sending the Coast Guard. This was the first time since 1970 that military units were intervening in a labor dispute. The dockworkers called out to other unions and also to Occupy for support in the upcoming showdown.

A struggle such as this isn’t won by a lone superhero; it takes large numbers of committed men and women. Although that may seem obvious, it’s easy to overlook the obvious. The myth of the superhero has been with us since Homer composed the Iliad; it survived the Middle Ages in stories of knights in white shining armor, and lived on to become a Hollywood cliché, particularly in Westerns. In today’s world it fits perfectly with the concept of capitalist individualism, justifying the huge salaries and bonuses of greedy CEOs at the expense of the 99%–the supposedly undeserving townspeople.

There are indeed a lot of real-life heroes in this world, but not every player is a hero, and Carl Foreman did an excellent job of portraying those who are not. They’re the town’s leading citizens, mostly well meaning people–but giving in to Frank Miller is the easy way out. We see plenty of them in Oakland, starting with the Mayor, a former Maoist who waffled back and forth, finally caving in to the 1%. In the weeks leading up to the West Coast Port shutdown of December 12, labor bureaucrats actually urged dock workers to cross picket lines. And even supposedly “leftist” journalists adopted the one-percenters’ talking points against Occupy. It’s in presenting those non-heroes, “leaders” who mislead, that Foreman’s script is at its best.

“If [Kane’s] not here when Miller comes in, my hunch is there won’t be any trouble, not one bit,” says a prominent citizen in Foreman’s movie script, and that’s essentially what a lot of liberals and labor bureaucrats have been saying of Occupy, first in December, and again this January regarding events up north in Longview.

Action in the movie focuses on the arrival of the 12 o’clock train, when Miller and his escort of gunslingers will make their move. In the Port of Longview, the focus was on a ship, which was about to arrive, escorted by the Coast Guard. Dockworkers had sent out a broad appeal for support, and Occupy and labor responded with caravans ready to rush to Longview to meet the present-day Frank Miller. Mostly they’d be from Seattle, Portland and other cities of that region; there would also be a contingent from Occupy Oakland.

“We can expect cold weather and cops,” Barucha Peller told a meeting in Oakland on the eve of our expected departure. Snow was reportedly on the ground in Longview. People shivered visibly at the very thought of going north to do battle in snow, slush and freezing rain, but nobody seemed to be backing out either. 150 from the Bay Area had so far signed up for the caravan, and the list was growing. Then, came the news: EGT, the shipping company, had given in and signed a contract that the dockworkers of Local 21 found acceptable.

The victory was won by the determination of a large number of courageous people who were willing to fight the battle. This suggests another possible ending to High Noon. In this scenario, as the hour approaches, a dozen or so of the townspeople head out to the train depot. Frank Miller sees them coming, gets back on the train, and sets out for parts unknown.

Daniel Borgström is an ex-Marine against the war, a veteran occupier. He writes about progressive actions. He can be reached at: daniel@borgstrom.com.

February 24, 2012 Posted by | Solidarity and Activism, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Ales Bialiatski: legally a convicted criminal, ideologically a “human rights activist”

By Gearóid Ó Colmáin | Dissident Voice | February 24th, 2012

Excerpt

On the 8th of August as plans for the siege of Sirte in Libya were underway, American senator John McCain was already signaling that Belarus would be America’s next target for regime change. McCain referred to the imprisonment of Ales Bialiatski, the so-called “human rights” activist arrested by the Belarusian authorities for fiscal fraud in 2011.

Bialiatski is the vice-president of the International Federation of Human Rights, (Fédération internationale des ligues des droits de l’Homme) a sub-organisation of which provided the United Nation’s Human Rights Council with false information in February 2011 accusing the Libyan government of “massacres” in Benghazi.

This false information served as a pretext for a war of aggression that led to the killing of tens of thousands of people, reducing a prosperous socially-oriented economy to rubble and imposing a corrupt foreign-selected dictatorship against the wishes of the Libyan people.

The barbaric destruction of the Libyan Jamahirya should serve as a sufficient lesson to any intelligent person of what NATO countries mean by “human rights,” “democracy,” and the “rule of law.”

Amnesty International’s condemnation of Bialiatski’s prosecution, without showing any proof of a miscarriage of justice on the part of the Belarusian courts, shows that the so-called “human rights” organization is more concerned with providing moral legitimacy for the foreign policy objectives of Western governments than protecting human rights.

Bialiatski was arrested by the Polish and Lithuanian police for fiscal fraud on intelligence supplied to them by Interpol. He was not arrested for his political opposition to the Belarusian government. This is not the first time Amnesty International has falsely accused Belarus of human rights violations and it is unlikely to be the last.

Since Bialiatski’s imprisonment, the Polish government has moved to prevent further Interpol arrest warrants issued from “undemocratic” countries. This is rather farcical coming from a state where wearing a Che Guevara T-Shirt could land you in jail!

The human rights charade is now becoming so ridiculous it is likely to backfire in the long term. Regime change specialists such as Canvas, a US funded colour revolution training centre based in Belgrade, are now orchestrating stunts involving the use of naked women protesting outside the KGB headquarters in Minsk. Behaviour of this kind would get one arrested in any country.

However, the point of the exercise is, in fact, to get arrested, film it and thereby embarrass the KGB. But the KGB, being an intelligence agency, have pre-empted their plans and the silly nudists have only succeeded in catching a cold and providing light entertainment for pedestrians, all in the cause of the “revolution.”

That Amnesty International should hold openly take sides in favour of US-funded pseudo-dissidents should not surprise us. After all, the head of Amnesty International USA Suzanne Nossel is a former assistant to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the man they call Dr. Stranglove, former National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski is also a former board member of the same human rights organisation.

Full article

February 24, 2012 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , | Leave a comment

‘Some Arab states against political solution to Syria unrest’

Press TV – February 24, 2012

Hezbollah Secretary-General Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah has accused some Arab countries of stirring up trouble in Syria by blocking a political solution to the unrest in the country.

Nasrallah said on Friday that certain Arab countries are arming and funding terrorist groups fighting against the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and prevent the opposition from entering into negotiations with the government.

The Hezbollah chief also accused those countries of sending fighters into Syria to fuel unrest in the country.

He also said that the US and the West do not want to send troops to Syria and instead they are trying to spark racial, tribal and sectarian confrontations in the country.

Head of Hezbollah resistance movement also accused the US and the West of adopting hypocritical approaches regarding protest movements in the Middle East region. Nasrallah said while the US and its allies describe dialogue as the only way to end protests in Bahrain, they all oppose political solution and support violence when it comes to Syria.

He also said that the US and Israel want to destroy the Middle East by dividing its people and spreading chaos.

Nasrallah has repeatedly said that the US and its allies oppose reforms in Syria and that they seek to ignite a civil war in the country.

February 24, 2012 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | 1 Comment

Syria Opposition Group Boycotts Tunis Meeting, Rejects Escalated Militarization

Al-Manar | February 24, 2012

A Syrian opposition group announced it was boycotting the international “Friends of Syria” conference in Tunis, as it complained of exclusion and fearing escalated militarization.

The National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change (NCCDC) denounced “attempts to leave the door open to militaries” the unrest in Syria.

“We have seen a dangerous trend towards … specifying who represents the Syrian people … leaving the issue of armament vague and opening the door to accept the idea of foreign military intervention,” a statement said.

All that came “despite assurances from the Tunisian President (Moncef Marzouki) that opposition groups will be treated equally and that there will not be recognition of one party at the expense of the others, and that foreign military intervention is a red line and that increasing militarization is dangerous.”

The NCCDC had already sent a delegation to Tunis, headed by prominent Paris-based figure Haitham Manna.

Headed by Hassan Abdel Azim, the NCCDC strongly opposes a Libya-style military intervention in Syria to topple the Assad regime.

A draft final declaration of the Tunis meeting calls for the Arab League to convene a meeting of the Syrian opposition and praises the Syrian National Council (SNC), formed in exile.

But it does not appear to give the SNC exclusive recognition, calling it only “a legitimate representative of Syrians seeking peaceful democratic change.”

February 24, 2012 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Hana al-Shalabi on hunger strike against renewed administrative detention

By Ali Abunimah | The Electronic Intifada | February 23, 2012

News emerged today that a Palestinian woman, Hana Yahya al-Shalabi is on hunger strike against her renewed “administrative detention” without charge or trial by Israel. Al-Shalabi spent more than two years in administrative detention, and had been freed last October as part of the prisoner exchange deal between Israel and Hamas.

On 17 February, al-Shalabi, who is 29, was once again arrested by Israeli occupation forces from her home near Jenin in the occupied West Bank and is again under detention without charge or trial.

According to an Addameer profile which refers to her earlier period of detention:

Shalabi was arrested from her family home on 14 September 2009. At approximately 1:30 a.m. that morning, Israeli soldiers in 12 military jeeps surrounded her house in Burqin village, near the West Bank town of Jenin. The soldiers ordered Hana’s entire family outside of the house and demanded Hana give them her identity card. They then proceeded to conduct a thorough search of the family’s home. During the search, one of the soldiers forcibly removed framed pictures of Hana’s brother Samer, who was killed by the Israeli army in 2005, tore them apart and walked over the pieces in front of the entire family.

Shalabi was subjected to solitary confinement, abuse and sexual harassment during her interrogation and then ordered to be detained without charge or trial for six months.

That order was later renewed, however she was subsequently released as part of the prisoner deal in which Israel agreed to release 1,027 Palestinians in exchange for the return of an Israeli soldier who had been held in Gaza since 2006.

February 23, 2012 Posted by | Solidarity and Activism, Subjugation - Torture | , | Leave a comment