Paul Wellstone airplane "accident" (Democrat, Iraq war opponent)
Mel Carnahan, (Democrat) Carnahan was the second Missouri politician to die in a small plane crash. The first was Democratic Representative Jerry Litton, whose plane crashed the night he won the Democratic nomination for senate in 1976.
Liberal Republican John Heinz, (There once were liberal Republicans) opponent of the Vietnam War, proponent of health care, social services, public transportation and the environment. Urged reconciliation with Cuba. Landing gear on his small plane failed to function, and a helicopter sent to observe the problem crashed into his plane.
John Tower, (Right wing Republican) also died in a small plane crash. Tower was best known as the chair of the Tower Commission, which investigated the Reagan/Bush era Iran/Contra scandal. Led Commission that issued a report that was critical of the Reagan Administration's connections with Iran and the Nicaraguan contra guerillas.
Another member of a prominent government commission who died in an airplane accident was former Democratic representative and House Majority Leader Hale Boggs. Boggs was a member of the Warren Commission that whitewashed the JFK assasination. He went public years later with his "doubts" about Lee Harvey Oswald being the "lone gunman." Vanished with Nicholas Begich Nicholas Joseph "Nick" Begich, Sr. (April 6, 1932 – undetermined, presumed dead October 16, 1972) was a Democratic Party member of the United States House of Representatives from Alaska. He disappeared in a 1972 plane crash.
Texas Democratic Representative Mickey Leland also died in a plane crash.
Another American politician to die overseas in a plane crash was the Clinton administration's Commerce Secretary, Ronald Brown, whose plane went down in the Balkans.
Mario Cuomo - A Democrat in An Airplane
Cuomo 's Plane Is Crippled, Forcing Emergency LandingBy DON TERRY
New York Times (1857-Current file); Nov 21, 1988; ProQuest Historical Newspapers
The New York Times (1851 - 2001)pg. B3
The article reports that "shortly before 2AM" the aircraft "which was overhauled last year at a cost of about $700,000 "began to fill with smoke and an acrid odor" and made an emergency landing at a small airfield in Pennsylvania. "A network of air traffic controllers scatered across three states and a plane flying nearby helped guide the Governor's crippled aricraft to a safe landing at the airport, which was closed...." "Some transmissions from the air traffic controllers to Cuomo's plane were garbled."The same plane had been forced to make an emergency landing in July with Cuomo on board. Cuomo dropped out of the 1988 presidential race and declined to run in 1992.
The Mystery of Mario Cuomo
by Halton Adler Mann
President, Vice President, Supreme Court Justice. Many American politicians have lusted for the first, settled for the second and accepted the third when the first two prizes were not to be theirs. But only ONE man, Mario M. Cuomo, former three term Governor of New Yorkdeclined all THREE perfect and predictably successful opportunities to leavethe political battlefield and the highest elective and appointive positionsto lower common denominators, to those who were monomaniacal in their desireto be next to or at the top of Disraeli's "greasy pole". How to explain this inexplicable abdication of personal and political destiny, specifically, Governor Cuomo's refusal to run for president in 1988 or 1992--in the latter year with his private plane on the Albany tarmac--to take him to meet the New Hampshire registration deadline as a presidential candidate? Governor Cuomo's stated reason for spurning the second presidential opportunity--to stay in Albany and debate the budget with State Senate President RalphMarino--was a ridiculous excuse no one accepted. Perhaps Cuomo did not want to be president, certainly not as passionately as Bill Clinton and he thought that the inevitable primary battle would be divisive and Democrat-defeating. Rationales accompany refusals. But 1992 was his second presidential prospect and not the best. In 1988,once Gary Hart self-destructed in personal scandal and Michael Dukakis was predicted to be the worst national nominee in Democratic Party history with the exception of Al Gore who SHOULD have won the 2000 race comfortably, Mario Cuomo should have entered and would have won, defeating George Bush, Senior before his incumbency,as easily as Bill Clinton did four years later. (Mario Cuomo would have nominated a progressive Black judge to Thurgood Marshall's Supreme Courtseat, therefore giving Gore the fifth vote he would need to continue the Florida recount. Clarence Thomas would have remained an unknown name in the meretricious American spectacle.)
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Jury Nullification
http://www.prorev.com/juries.htm
JUROR'S MANUAL
NEWS ITEMS
What lawyers & judges
won't tell you
about juries
By Sam Smith
The fully informed jury movement has been in the news and the subject of badly misinformed journalism. The following article, which appeared in the Progressive Review in 1990, explains this important issue:
William Penn may have thought he had settled the matter. Arrested in 1670 for preaching Quakerism, Penn was brought to trial. Despite Penn's admitting the charge, four of the 12 jurors voted to acquit. The judge sent the four to jail "without meat, drink, fire and tobacco" for failing to find Penn guilty. On appeal, however, the jurors' action was upheld and the right of juries to judge both the law and the facts -- to nullify the law if it chose -- became part of British constitutional law.
It ultimately became part of American constitutional law as well, but you'd never know it listening to jury instructions today almost anywhere in the country. With only a few exceptions, juries are explicitly or implicitly told to worry only about the facts and let the judge decide the law. The right of jury nullification has become one of the legal system's best kept secrets.
Now a remarkable coalition has sprung up to challenge this secrecy as undemocratic, unconstitutional and dangerous. Though organized by libertarian activists, the Fully Informed Jury Amendment movement includes liberals and conservatives, Greens, drug decriminalization advocates, gun owner groups, peace activists, both sides of the abortion controversy, helmet and seatbelt activists, alternative medicine practitioners, taxpayer rights groups, environmentalists, criminal trial lawyers and law professors.
Organized by Larry Dodge and Don Doig, both of Helmville, Montana (population: 26; elevation 4300'), FIJA seeks to require that juries be informed of their nullification rights. Informed jury amendments have been filed as an initiative in seven states and legislation has been introduced in the Alaska state legislature.
Merely raising the issue of nullification can make prosecutors nervous, for it takes only one person aware of the right in order to hang a jury. In Washington, DC, where the concept was discussed in connection with the Marion Barry trial, a local television station reported that the US Attorney was worried that a jury might nullify the law in that case. The joke in DC was that Barry was campaigning, but only for one vote, that of a single juror. The specific charges against Barry revolved around his use of drugs and a growing number of people are coming to accept the argument that drug use or addiction should not be a criminal offense. Further many DC residents were concerned about the prosecution's heavy-handed pursuit of the mayor. Despite the refusal of courts to inform juries of their right to nullify, American juries have periodically exercised it anyway. In recent years, some peace protesters have been acquitted despite strong evidence that they violated the law. In the 19th century northern juries would refuse to convict under the fugitive slave laws. And in 1735 journalist Peter Zenger, accused of seditious libel, was acquitted by a jury that ignored the court's instructions on the law.
Those who have endorsed the right of a jury to judge both the law and the facts include Chief Justice John Jay, Samuel Chase, Dean Roscoe Pound, Learned Hand and Oliver Wendell Holmes. According to the Yale Law Journal in 1964, during the first third of the 19th century judges did inform juries of the right, forcing lawyers to argue "the law -- its interpretation and validity -- to the jury." By the latter part of the century, however, judges and state law were increasingly moving against nullification. In 1895 the US Supreme Court upheld the principle but ruled that juries were not to be informed of it by defense attorneys, nor were judges required to tell them about it. Stephen Barkan, writing in Social Problems (October 1983), noted that the attacks on nullification stemmed in part from juries acquitting strike organizers and other labor activists. And in 1892 the American Bar Review warned that jurors had "developed agrarian tendencies of an alarming character."
Today, the constitutions of only two states -- Maryland and Indiana -- clearly declare the nullification right, although two others -- Georgia and Oregon -- refer to it obliquely. The informed jury movement would like all states to require that judges instruct juries on their power to serve, in effect, as the final legislature of the land concerning the law in a particular case.
As the diverse nature of the movement suggests, many groups in this country feel the government has overstepped its power in some way and that there must be protection for the natural rights of American citizens. They are defending not only the right to protest or carry a gun or not wear seatbelts but challenging the right of the government to decide such matters without the mediating effect of a jury's judgement of fairness in a particular case.
For many liberals and progressives, who tend to be confident of the beneficent nature of government power, such a challenge may be a bit uncomfortable -- understandable in a case involving a peace protest, less appreciated if invoked by a member of the National Rifle Association. The libertarians argue that the two are of one cloth. As government intrusion in individual matters has increased, the libertarian view has gained influence, helping to tilt normal left-right divisions on their side. Libertarians, for example, have been key to the growing opposition to the barbaric Reagan-Bush war on drugs, providing some of the best analysis and advocacy available on the issue.
Libertarians are again in the lead on the nullification issue. Many progressives may be uneasy about the thought of a western jury nullifying a case involving a gun control or seatbelt law, but this unease reminds one of little discussed principles that were once considered central to being an American -- not the least of which was freedom from some government official telling you how to live your life. As the design of the modern centralized welfare state frays and becomes increasingly authoritarian, reacquaintance with some of our individualistic roots has much to recommend it.
NULLIFYING NULLIFICATION
It was nice to see the Washington Post finally giving some attention to jury nullification, even if after four months of research and interviews with more than 100 jurors, judges, defense lawyers and prosecutors, it still couldn't get the story right.
For example reporter Joan Biskupic stated, "Anyone accused of a crime in this country is entitled to a jury trial." The Constitution may say so but, in fact, this is simply not the case -- and becoming less so as politicians fiddle with legal definitions and sentencing standards in order specifically to reduce the number of persons entitled to a trial.
Biskupic also wrote: "The American custom is that jurors decide the facts of the case (whether the person did what he is accused of) and leave it to judges to interpret the law. There is no room, in other words, for jurors to say whether they think the law is a good one, though there have been a few celebrated exceptions -- notably the 18th-century acquittal of John Peter Zenger of seditious libel and the 19th-century acquittals for prosecution under the fugitive slave law."
This is a rewriting of history, one of the privileges of a reporter who works for a paper free to do so thanks to the rights of jurors upheld in the Zenger case. -- TPR 2/99
In fact, it is unlikely that a jury considering a gun control case would excuse the leader of an underground Nazi movement or a gang of bank robbers. It 1is far more likely that it would acquit the respectable rancher who simply believes that gun control represents further destruction of his paradigm of individual liberty. If so, what have we lost?
The history of jury nullification suggests there is little to fear. In those states where the concept is respected to some degree it has had minimal effect on the overall functioning of the law. Nullification has, on the other hand, played a little noted but significant role in the advance of religious and press freedom, the abolition of slavery and the building of a labor movement. Even in the face of hostility by contemporary courts, it has cropped up in political protest trials of the past few decades. And it might have surfaced more frequently absent that hostility. As one of the jurors said following the conviction of the Berrigan brothers in 1980:
We convicted them on three things, and we really didn't want to convict them on anything. But we had to, because of the way the judge said the only thing that you can use is what you get under the law... I would have loved to hold up a flag to show them we approved of what they were doing. It was very difficult for us to bring in that conviction.
The nullification principle involves the power to say no to the excesses of government, and thus serves as a final defense against tyranny. As Thomas Jefferson put it to Tom Paine in a 1789 letter, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." To get in touch with the fully informed jury movement write: Fully Informed Jury Association, Box 59, Helmville MT 5984, 406-793-5550
"If a juror feels that the statute involved in any criminal offence is unfair, or that it infringes upon the defendant's natural god-given unalienable or constitutional rights, then it is his duty to affirm that the offending statute is really no law at all and that the violation of it is no crime at all, for no one is bound to obey an unjust law." -- Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone
"For more than six hundred years-- that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215--there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such law." --Lysander Spooner, The Right of Juries
If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence. -- 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, US v Moylan, 1969
Every jury in the land is tampered with and falsely instructed by the judge when it is told that it must accept as the law that which has been given to them, or that they can decide only the facts of the case. -- Lord Denham, O'Connell v Rex (1884)
The jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both the law and the facts. -- Justice Holmes, Homing v District of Columbia, 138 (1920)
When a jury acquits a defendant even though he or she clearly appears to be guilty, the acquittal conveys significant information about community attitudes and provides a guideline for future prosecutorial discretion...Because of the high acquittal rate in prohibition cases in the 1920s and early 1930s, prohibition laws could not be enforced. The repeal of these laws is traceable to the refusal of juries to convict those accused of alcohol traffic. -- Sheflin and Van Dyke, Law and Contemporary Problems, 43, No. 4, 1980
It is not only the juror's right, but his duty, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition to the directions of the court.-- John Adams
THE WIRE'S WRITERS COME OUT FOR FULL JURY RIGHTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Please Spread Far and Wide
Stop Family Court Abuse
(Legalizes the Destruction of the Black & Latino Family)
Stop Family Court Attack on Black and Latino Families. ACS Steals Black and Latino Children & Family Court Judges Rubber Stamp ACS Crimes
Monday August 25, 2008 at 12 PM
Outside Queens Family Court, Jamaica Avenue
151-20 Jamaica Avenue, Jamaica, NY 11432 (Train E to last Stop in Queens or F train to Parsons Blvd)
Echoes of the trans-Atlantic slave trade and the abusive systematic attack on Black & Latino families at the hands of government reverberate in the halls of the NYC Family Court. Family Court has time and again, patronized the snatching of Black & Latino children from stable intact families on flimsy pretexts
Family Court is an Institutionalized System of Injustice Set in Place to Give an Aura of Legality to the White Collard Racketeering Criminal Enterprise of Family Destruction and Child Slave Trade. There is no Jury or Due Process in Family Court. Parents only win 2 cases out of a 1,000 in a 1028 Hearing
Organized by the December 12 Movement: 718-398-1766
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --
Alto al Abuso de la Corte de Familia
(Legaliza la Destrucción de la Familia Negra y Latina)
Paren el Ataque de la Corte de Familia contra las Familias Negras y Latinas. Protesta Contra los Abusos de la Corte de Familia. ACS se Roba a los Niños Negros y Latinos y los Jueces de la Corte de Familia automáticamente Apoyan los Crímenes de ACS
Lunes, Agosto 25, 2008 a las 12 PM
Fuera de la Corte de Familia de Queens. Avenida Jamaica
151-20 Jamaica Avenue, Jamaica, NY 11432 (Tren E hasta la ultima parada o tren F hasta Parsons Blvd)
Ecos del trafico de esclavos trasatlántico y el sistemático ataque abusivo a la familia Negra y Latina a manos del gobierno resuena en los pasillos de la Corte de Familia en NYC. La Corte de Familia, una y otra vez ha apoyado el Secuestro de niños Negros y Latinos de familias estables, bajo pretextos ridículos
La Corte de Familia es un Sistema Institucionalizado de Injusticia, montado con el propósito de darle un aura de Legalidad a esa Empresa Criminal de Destrucción de la Familia y Tráfico de Niños Esclavos. No existe Jurado o Proceso Legal en la Corte de Familia. Los Padres solo ganan 2 casos de cada mil en una Audiencia 1028
Organizado por el Movimiento Diciembre 12: 718-398-1766
(Para orientación en Español llame a Padres en Acción al 347-624-4830)
http://www.padresen accion.net, rolando@padresenacc ion.net
__._,_.___
Messages in this topic (1) R
Stop Family Court Abuse
(Legalizes the Destruction of the Black & Latino Family)
Stop Family Court Attack on Black and Latino Families. ACS Steals Black and Latino Children & Family Court Judges Rubber Stamp ACS Crimes
Monday August 25, 2008 at 12 PM
Outside Queens Family Court, Jamaica Avenue
151-20 Jamaica Avenue, Jamaica, NY 11432 (Train E to last Stop in Queens or F train to Parsons Blvd)
Echoes of the trans-Atlantic slave trade and the abusive systematic attack on Black & Latino families at the hands of government reverberate in the halls of the NYC Family Court. Family Court has time and again, patronized the snatching of Black & Latino children from stable intact families on flimsy pretexts
Family Court is an Institutionalized System of Injustice Set in Place to Give an Aura of Legality to the White Collard Racketeering Criminal Enterprise of Family Destruction and Child Slave Trade. There is no Jury or Due Process in Family Court. Parents only win 2 cases out of a 1,000 in a 1028 Hearing
Organized by the December 12 Movement: 718-398-1766
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --
Alto al Abuso de la Corte de Familia
(Legaliza la Destrucción de la Familia Negra y Latina)
Paren el Ataque de la Corte de Familia contra las Familias Negras y Latinas. Protesta Contra los Abusos de la Corte de Familia. ACS se Roba a los Niños Negros y Latinos y los Jueces de la Corte de Familia automáticamente Apoyan los Crímenes de ACS
Lunes, Agosto 25, 2008 a las 12 PM
Fuera de la Corte de Familia de Queens. Avenida Jamaica
151-20 Jamaica Avenue, Jamaica, NY 11432 (Tren E hasta la ultima parada o tren F hasta Parsons Blvd)
Ecos del trafico de esclavos trasatlántico y el sistemático ataque abusivo a la familia Negra y Latina a manos del gobierno resuena en los pasillos de la Corte de Familia en NYC. La Corte de Familia, una y otra vez ha apoyado el Secuestro de niños Negros y Latinos de familias estables, bajo pretextos ridículos
La Corte de Familia es un Sistema Institucionalizado de Injusticia, montado con el propósito de darle un aura de Legalidad a esa Empresa Criminal de Destrucción de la Familia y Tráfico de Niños Esclavos. No existe Jurado o Proceso Legal en la Corte de Familia. Los Padres solo ganan 2 casos de cada mil en una Audiencia 1028
Organizado por el Movimiento Diciembre 12: 718-398-1766
(Para orientación en Español llame a Padres en Acción al 347-624-4830)
http://www.padresen accion.net, rolando@padresenacc ion.net
__._,_.___
Messages in this topic (1) R
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Venezuela Matters
http://democratsinairplanes.blogspot.com/2005/05/mario-cuomo-democrat-in-airplane.html
I have friends and family in Venezuela - in the not too distant future I'd like to retire there with my wife. The Venezuelan people have a right to decide what sort of government they want. I ask of my country- leave Venezuela alone!
Venezuela matters.
I have friends and family in Venezuela - in the not too distant future I'd like to retire there with my wife. The Venezuelan people have a right to decide what sort of government they want. I ask of my country- leave Venezuela alone!
Venezuela matters.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Nu? So what's New? I have started another blog called "Venezuela Matters"
http://democratsinairplanes.blogspot.com/2005/05/mario-cuomo-democrat-in-airplane.html
I talk about Lincoln and Chavez and Teodoro Petkoff's complaint.
I talk about Lincoln and Chavez and Teodoro Petkoff's complaint.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Especially if you live in New York and are thinking about becoming a Child Protective Specialist you should look at these two blogs-
Child Protective Manager Ramon Vargas Is Not An Idiot and ACS Must Be Stopped. Eugene Weixel, who blogs these sites also has an interesting site Taxi Nights.
Child Protective Manager Ramon Vargas Is Not An Idiot and ACS Must Be Stopped. Eugene Weixel, who blogs these sites also has an interesting site Taxi Nights.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Snake Oil, Corn Oil and Peak Oil.
Snake oil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Snake oil used to be sold as a cure all from the backs of horse drawn wagons by self educated "doctors" in the American West.
Corn Oil, or ethanol made from corn, is presented to the gullible American public as a cure for it's dependence on Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran and other "furriners" for oil, something Americans burn in prodigious amounts. Here is an excerpt from an informative article " The Ethanol Scam" by Robert Bryce. Robert Bryce lives in Austin, Texas and managing editor of Energy Tribune. He is the author of Cronies: Oil, the Bushes, and the Rise of Texas, America's Superstate. He can be reached at: robert@robertbryce.com
Using food to make fuel bothers many analysts, and whether their affiliation is liberal or conservative doesn't seem to matter. Dennis Avery, director of global food issues at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think-tank in Washington, D.C., has concerns that are remarkably similar to Brown's. A few days after Brown's piece appeared in the Post, Avery published a paper showing that ethanol simply cannot provide enough motor fuel to make a significant difference in America's fuel consumption. And like Brown, he laid bare the essential question: food or fuel?
"The real conflict over cropland in the 21st century," wrote Avery, "will set people's desire for biofuels against their altruistic desire that all the children on the planet be well-nourished." He continued, "The world's total cropland resources seem totally inadequate to the vast size of the energy challenge. We would effectively be burning food as auto fuel in a world that is not fully well-fed now, and whose food demand will more than double in the next 40 years." Avery says that even if the U.S. adopted biofuels as the antidote for imported crude oil, "It would take more than 546 million acres of U.S. farmland to replace all of our current gasoline use with corn ethanol."
That's a huge area, especially considering that the total amount of American cropland covers about 440 million acres. ...
Thus, while farmers, politicos, and Big Agriculture insist on casting the ethanol scam in terms of national security, the evils of foreign oil, and the benefits of ethanol to rural communities, the larger issue is a moral one: are we going to use our precious farmland to grow food, or are we going to subsidize the growth of an industry that turns food into a commodity, motor fuel, of which we already have an abundant supply?
The answer should be obvious.
http://www.counterpunch.org/bryce03022007.html
Wait a minute! Did Bryce say "abundant supply??? Doesn't everyobody know that oil is running out and the human race is facing an energy impoverished disasterous future?
Well, "Peak Oil" is just another kind of "snake oil.
Here is a recent New York Times Article about the world's oil supply and the technology that exists to extract it> (Check out "Fair Use")
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/business/05oil1.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 5, 2007
Oil Innovations Pump New Life Into Old Wells
By JAD MOUAWAD
Correction Appended
BAKERSFIELD, Calif. — The Kern River oil field, discovered in 1899, was revived when Chevron engineers here started injecting high-pressured steam to pump out more oil. The field, whose production had slumped to 10,000 barrels a day in the 1960s, now has a daily output of 85,000 barrels.
In Indonesia, Chevron has applied the same technology to the giant Duri oil field, discovered in 1941, boosting production there to more than 200,000 barrels a day, up from 65,000 barrels in the mid-1980s.
And in Texas, Exxon Mobil expects to double the amount of oil it extracts from its Means field, which dates back to the 1930s. Exxon, like Chevron, will use three-dimensional imaging of the underground field and the injection of a gas — in this case, carbon dioxide — to flush out the oil.
Within the last decade, technology advances have made it possible to unlock more oil from old fields, and, at the same time, higher oil prices have made it economical for companies to go after reserves that are harder to reach. With plenty of oil still left in familiar locations, forecasts that the world’s reserves are drying out have given way to predictions that more oil can be found than ever before.
In a wide-ranging study published in 2000, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that ultimately recoverable resources of conventional oil totaled about 3.3 trillion barrels, of which a third has already been produced. More recently, Cambridge Energy Research Associates, an energy consultant, estimated that the total base of recoverable oil was 4.8 trillion barrels. That higher estimate — which Cambridge Energy says is likely to grow — reflects how new technology can tap into more resources.
“It’s the fifth time to my count that we’ve gone through a period when it seemed the end of oil was near and people were talking about the exhaustion of resources,” said Daniel Yergin, the chairman of Cambridge Energy and author of a Pulitzer Prize-winning history of oil, who cited similar concerns in the 1880s, after both world wars and in the 1970s. “Back then we were going to fly off the oil mountain. Instead we had a boom and oil went to $10 instead of $100.”
There is still a minority view, held largely by a small band of retired petroleum geologists and some members of Congress, that oil production has peaked, but the theory has been fading. Equally contentious for the oil companies is the growing voice of environmentalists, who do not think that pumping and consuming an ever-increasing amount of fossil fuel is in any way desirable.
Increased projections for how much oil is extractable may become a political topic on many different fronts and in unpredictable ways. By reassuring the public that supplies will meet future demands, oil companies may also find legislators more reluctant to consider opening Alaska and other areas to new exploration.
Video
More Video »
On a global level, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, which has coalesced around a price of $50 a barrel for oil, will likely see its clout reinforced in coming years. The 12-country cartel, which added Angola as its newest member this year, is poised to control more than 50 percent of the oil market in coming years, up from 35 percent today, as Western oil production declines.
Oil companies say they can provide enough supplies — which might eventually lead to lower oil and gasoline prices — but that they see few alternatives to fossil fuels. Inevitably, this means that global carbon emissions used in the transportation sector will continue to increase, and so will their contribution to global warming.
The oil industry is well known for seeking out new sources of fossil fuel in far-flung places, from the icy plains of Siberia to the deep waters off West Africa. But now the quest for new discoveries is taking place alongside a much less exotic search that is crucial to the world’s energy supplies. Oil companies are returning to old or mature fields partly because there are few virgin places left to explore, and, of those, few are open to investors.
At Bakersfield, for example, Chevron is using steam-flooding technology and computerized three-dimensional models to boost the output of the field’s heavy oil reserves. Even after a century of production, engineers say there is plenty of oil left to be pumped from Kern River.
“We’re still finding new opportunities here,” said Steve Garrett, a geophysicist with Chevron. “It’s not over until you abandon the last well, and even then it’s not over.”
Some forecasters, studying data on how much oil is used each year and how much is still believed to be in the ground, have argued that at some point by 2010, global oil production will peak — if it has not already — and begin to fall. That drop would usher in an uncertain era of shortages, price spikes and economic decline.
“I am very, very seriously worried about the future we are facing,” said Kjell Aleklett, the president of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas. “It is clear that oil is in limited supplies.”
Many oil executives say that these so-called peak-oil theorists fail to take into account the way that sophisticated technology, combined with higher prices that make searches for new oil more affordable, are opening up opportunities to develop supplies. As the industry improves its ability to draw new life from old wells and expands its forays into ever-deeper corners of the globe, it is providing a strong rebuttal in the long-running debate over when the world might run out of oil.
Typically, oil companies can only produce one barrel for every three they find. Two usually are left behind, either because they are too hard to pump out or because it would be too expensive to do so. Going after these neglected resources, energy experts say, represents a tremendous opportunity.
“Ironically, most of the oil we will discover is from oil we’ve already found,” said Lawrence Goldstein, an energy analyst at the Energy Policy Research Foundation, an industry-funded group. “What has been missing is the technology and the threshold price that will lead to a revolution in lifting that oil.”
Nansen G. Saleri, the head of reservoir management at the state-owned Saudi Aramco, said that new seismic tools giving geologists a better view of oil fields, real-time imaging software and the ability to drill horizontal wells could boost global reserves.
Mr. Saleri said that Saudi Arabia’s total reserves were almost three times higher that the kingdom’s officially published figure of 260 billion barrels, or about a quarter of the world’s proven total.
He estimated the kingdom’s resources at 716 billion barrels, including oil that has already been produced as well as more uncertain reserves. And thanks to more sophisticated technology, Mr. Saleri said he “wouldn’t be surprised” if ultimate reserves in Saudi Arabia eventually reached 1 trillion barrels.
Even if the Saudi estimates are impossible to verify, they underline the fact that oil companies are constantly looking for new ways to unlock more oil from the ground.
At the Kern River field just outside of Bakersfield, millions of gallons of steam are injected into the field to melt the oil, which has the unusually dense consistency of very thick molasses. The steamed liquid is then drained through underground reservoirs and pumped out by about 8,500 production wells scattered around the field, which covers 20 square miles.
Initially, engineers expected to recover only 10 percent of the field’s oil. Now, thanks to decades of trial and error, Chevron believes it will be able to recover up to 80 percent of the oil from the field, more than twice the industry’s average recovery rate, which is typically around 35 percent. Each well produces about 10 barrels a day at a cost of $16 each. That compares with production costs of only $1 or $2 a barrel in the Persian Gulf, home to the world’s lowest-cost producers.
Chevron hopes to use the knowledge it has obtained from this vast open-air, and underground, laboratory and apply it to similar heavy oil fields around the world. It is also planning a large pilot program to test the technology in an area between Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, for example.
Oil companies have been perfecting so-called secondary and tertiary recovery methods — injecting all sorts of exotic gases and liquids into oil fields, including water and soap, natural gas, carbon dioxide and even hydrogen sulfide, a foul-smelling and poisonous gas.
Since the dawn of the Petroleum Age more than a century ago, the world has consumed more than 1 trillion barrels of oil. Most of that was of the light, liquid kind that was easy to find, easy to pump and easy to refine. But as these light sources are depleted, a growing share of the world’s oil reserves are made out of heavier oil.
Analysts estimate there are about 1 trillion barrels of heavy oil, tar sands, and shale-oil deposits in places like Canada, Venezuela and the United States that can be turned into liquid fuel by enhanced recovery methods like steam-flooding.
“This is an industry that moves in cycles, and right now, enormous amounts of innovation, technology and investments are being unleashed,” said Mr. Yergin, the author and energy consultant.
After years of underinvestment, oil companies are now in a global race to increase supplies to catch the growth of consumption. The world consumed about 31 billion barrels of oil last year. Because of population and economic growth, especially in Asian and developing countries, oil demand is forecast to rise 40 percent by 2030 to 43 billion barrels, according to the Energy Information Administration.
Back in California, the Kern River field itself seems little changed from what it must have looked like 100 years ago. The same dusty hills are now littered with a forest of wells, with gleaming pipes running along dusty roads. Seismic technology and satellites are now used to monitor operations while sensors inside the wells record slight changes in temperature or pressure. Each year, the company drills some 850 new wells there.
Amazingly, there are very few workers in the field. Engineers in air-conditioned control rooms can get an accurate picture of the field’s underground reservoir and pinpoint with accuracy the areas they want to explore. None of that technology was available just a decade ago.
“Yes, there are finite resources in the ground, but you never get to that point,” Jeff Hatlen, an engineer with Chevron, said on a recent tour of the field.
In 1978, when he started his career here, operators believed the field would be abandoned within 15 years. “That’s why peak oil is a moving target,” Mr. Hatlen said. “Oil is always a function of price and technology.”
Correction: March 6, 2007
A front-page article yesterday about technology advances that made it possible to unlock more oil from old fields misstated Saudi Arabia’s total reserves, which are about a quarter of the world’s proven total. It is 260 billion barrels, not million.
Corn Oil, or ethanol made from corn, is presented to the gullible American public as a cure for it's dependence on Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran and other "furriners" for oil, something Americans burn in prodigious amounts. Here is an excerpt from an informative article " The Ethanol Scam" by Robert Bryce. Robert Bryce lives in Austin, Texas and managing editor of Energy Tribune. He is the author of Cronies: Oil, the Bushes, and the Rise of Texas, America's Superstate. He can be reached at: robert@robertbryce.com
Using food to make fuel bothers many analysts, and whether their affiliation is liberal or conservative doesn't seem to matter. Dennis Avery, director of global food issues at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think-tank in Washington, D.C., has concerns that are remarkably similar to Brown's. A few days after Brown's piece appeared in the Post, Avery published a paper showing that ethanol simply cannot provide enough motor fuel to make a significant difference in America's fuel consumption. And like Brown, he laid bare the essential question: food or fuel?
"The real conflict over cropland in the 21st century," wrote Avery, "will set people's desire for biofuels against their altruistic desire that all the children on the planet be well-nourished." He continued, "The world's total cropland resources seem totally inadequate to the vast size of the energy challenge. We would effectively be burning food as auto fuel in a world that is not fully well-fed now, and whose food demand will more than double in the next 40 years." Avery says that even if the U.S. adopted biofuels as the antidote for imported crude oil, "It would take more than 546 million acres of U.S. farmland to replace all of our current gasoline use with corn ethanol."
That's a huge area, especially considering that the total amount of American cropland covers about 440 million acres. ...
Thus, while farmers, politicos, and Big Agriculture insist on casting the ethanol scam in terms of national security, the evils of foreign oil, and the benefits of ethanol to rural communities, the larger issue is a moral one: are we going to use our precious farmland to grow food, or are we going to subsidize the growth of an industry that turns food into a commodity, motor fuel, of which we already have an abundant supply?
The answer should be obvious.
http://www.counterpunch.org/bryce03022007.html
Wait a minute! Did Bryce say "abundant supply??? Doesn't everyobody know that oil is running out and the human race is facing an energy impoverished disasterous future?
Well, "Peak Oil" is just another kind of "snake oil.
Here is a recent New York Times Article about the world's oil supply and the technology that exists to extract it> (Check out "Fair Use")
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/business/05oil1.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 5, 2007
Oil Innovations Pump New Life Into Old Wells
By JAD MOUAWAD
Correction Appended
BAKERSFIELD, Calif. — The Kern River oil field, discovered in 1899, was revived when Chevron engineers here started injecting high-pressured steam to pump out more oil. The field, whose production had slumped to 10,000 barrels a day in the 1960s, now has a daily output of 85,000 barrels.
In Indonesia, Chevron has applied the same technology to the giant Duri oil field, discovered in 1941, boosting production there to more than 200,000 barrels a day, up from 65,000 barrels in the mid-1980s.
And in Texas, Exxon Mobil expects to double the amount of oil it extracts from its Means field, which dates back to the 1930s. Exxon, like Chevron, will use three-dimensional imaging of the underground field and the injection of a gas — in this case, carbon dioxide — to flush out the oil.
Within the last decade, technology advances have made it possible to unlock more oil from old fields, and, at the same time, higher oil prices have made it economical for companies to go after reserves that are harder to reach. With plenty of oil still left in familiar locations, forecasts that the world’s reserves are drying out have given way to predictions that more oil can be found than ever before.
In a wide-ranging study published in 2000, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that ultimately recoverable resources of conventional oil totaled about 3.3 trillion barrels, of which a third has already been produced. More recently, Cambridge Energy Research Associates, an energy consultant, estimated that the total base of recoverable oil was 4.8 trillion barrels. That higher estimate — which Cambridge Energy says is likely to grow — reflects how new technology can tap into more resources.
“It’s the fifth time to my count that we’ve gone through a period when it seemed the end of oil was near and people were talking about the exhaustion of resources,” said Daniel Yergin, the chairman of Cambridge Energy and author of a Pulitzer Prize-winning history of oil, who cited similar concerns in the 1880s, after both world wars and in the 1970s. “Back then we were going to fly off the oil mountain. Instead we had a boom and oil went to $10 instead of $100.”
There is still a minority view, held largely by a small band of retired petroleum geologists and some members of Congress, that oil production has peaked, but the theory has been fading. Equally contentious for the oil companies is the growing voice of environmentalists, who do not think that pumping and consuming an ever-increasing amount of fossil fuel is in any way desirable.
Increased projections for how much oil is extractable may become a political topic on many different fronts and in unpredictable ways. By reassuring the public that supplies will meet future demands, oil companies may also find legislators more reluctant to consider opening Alaska and other areas to new exploration.
Video
More Video »
On a global level, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, which has coalesced around a price of $50 a barrel for oil, will likely see its clout reinforced in coming years. The 12-country cartel, which added Angola as its newest member this year, is poised to control more than 50 percent of the oil market in coming years, up from 35 percent today, as Western oil production declines.
Oil companies say they can provide enough supplies — which might eventually lead to lower oil and gasoline prices — but that they see few alternatives to fossil fuels. Inevitably, this means that global carbon emissions used in the transportation sector will continue to increase, and so will their contribution to global warming.
The oil industry is well known for seeking out new sources of fossil fuel in far-flung places, from the icy plains of Siberia to the deep waters off West Africa. But now the quest for new discoveries is taking place alongside a much less exotic search that is crucial to the world’s energy supplies. Oil companies are returning to old or mature fields partly because there are few virgin places left to explore, and, of those, few are open to investors.
At Bakersfield, for example, Chevron is using steam-flooding technology and computerized three-dimensional models to boost the output of the field’s heavy oil reserves. Even after a century of production, engineers say there is plenty of oil left to be pumped from Kern River.
“We’re still finding new opportunities here,” said Steve Garrett, a geophysicist with Chevron. “It’s not over until you abandon the last well, and even then it’s not over.”
Some forecasters, studying data on how much oil is used each year and how much is still believed to be in the ground, have argued that at some point by 2010, global oil production will peak — if it has not already — and begin to fall. That drop would usher in an uncertain era of shortages, price spikes and economic decline.
“I am very, very seriously worried about the future we are facing,” said Kjell Aleklett, the president of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas. “It is clear that oil is in limited supplies.”
Many oil executives say that these so-called peak-oil theorists fail to take into account the way that sophisticated technology, combined with higher prices that make searches for new oil more affordable, are opening up opportunities to develop supplies. As the industry improves its ability to draw new life from old wells and expands its forays into ever-deeper corners of the globe, it is providing a strong rebuttal in the long-running debate over when the world might run out of oil.
Typically, oil companies can only produce one barrel for every three they find. Two usually are left behind, either because they are too hard to pump out or because it would be too expensive to do so. Going after these neglected resources, energy experts say, represents a tremendous opportunity.
“Ironically, most of the oil we will discover is from oil we’ve already found,” said Lawrence Goldstein, an energy analyst at the Energy Policy Research Foundation, an industry-funded group. “What has been missing is the technology and the threshold price that will lead to a revolution in lifting that oil.”
Nansen G. Saleri, the head of reservoir management at the state-owned Saudi Aramco, said that new seismic tools giving geologists a better view of oil fields, real-time imaging software and the ability to drill horizontal wells could boost global reserves.
Mr. Saleri said that Saudi Arabia’s total reserves were almost three times higher that the kingdom’s officially published figure of 260 billion barrels, or about a quarter of the world’s proven total.
He estimated the kingdom’s resources at 716 billion barrels, including oil that has already been produced as well as more uncertain reserves. And thanks to more sophisticated technology, Mr. Saleri said he “wouldn’t be surprised” if ultimate reserves in Saudi Arabia eventually reached 1 trillion barrels.
Even if the Saudi estimates are impossible to verify, they underline the fact that oil companies are constantly looking for new ways to unlock more oil from the ground.
At the Kern River field just outside of Bakersfield, millions of gallons of steam are injected into the field to melt the oil, which has the unusually dense consistency of very thick molasses. The steamed liquid is then drained through underground reservoirs and pumped out by about 8,500 production wells scattered around the field, which covers 20 square miles.
Initially, engineers expected to recover only 10 percent of the field’s oil. Now, thanks to decades of trial and error, Chevron believes it will be able to recover up to 80 percent of the oil from the field, more than twice the industry’s average recovery rate, which is typically around 35 percent. Each well produces about 10 barrels a day at a cost of $16 each. That compares with production costs of only $1 or $2 a barrel in the Persian Gulf, home to the world’s lowest-cost producers.
Chevron hopes to use the knowledge it has obtained from this vast open-air, and underground, laboratory and apply it to similar heavy oil fields around the world. It is also planning a large pilot program to test the technology in an area between Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, for example.
Oil companies have been perfecting so-called secondary and tertiary recovery methods — injecting all sorts of exotic gases and liquids into oil fields, including water and soap, natural gas, carbon dioxide and even hydrogen sulfide, a foul-smelling and poisonous gas.
Since the dawn of the Petroleum Age more than a century ago, the world has consumed more than 1 trillion barrels of oil. Most of that was of the light, liquid kind that was easy to find, easy to pump and easy to refine. But as these light sources are depleted, a growing share of the world’s oil reserves are made out of heavier oil.
Analysts estimate there are about 1 trillion barrels of heavy oil, tar sands, and shale-oil deposits in places like Canada, Venezuela and the United States that can be turned into liquid fuel by enhanced recovery methods like steam-flooding.
“This is an industry that moves in cycles, and right now, enormous amounts of innovation, technology and investments are being unleashed,” said Mr. Yergin, the author and energy consultant.
After years of underinvestment, oil companies are now in a global race to increase supplies to catch the growth of consumption. The world consumed about 31 billion barrels of oil last year. Because of population and economic growth, especially in Asian and developing countries, oil demand is forecast to rise 40 percent by 2030 to 43 billion barrels, according to the Energy Information Administration.
Back in California, the Kern River field itself seems little changed from what it must have looked like 100 years ago. The same dusty hills are now littered with a forest of wells, with gleaming pipes running along dusty roads. Seismic technology and satellites are now used to monitor operations while sensors inside the wells record slight changes in temperature or pressure. Each year, the company drills some 850 new wells there.
Amazingly, there are very few workers in the field. Engineers in air-conditioned control rooms can get an accurate picture of the field’s underground reservoir and pinpoint with accuracy the areas they want to explore. None of that technology was available just a decade ago.
“Yes, there are finite resources in the ground, but you never get to that point,” Jeff Hatlen, an engineer with Chevron, said on a recent tour of the field.
In 1978, when he started his career here, operators believed the field would be abandoned within 15 years. “That’s why peak oil is a moving target,” Mr. Hatlen said. “Oil is always a function of price and technology.”
Correction: March 6, 2007
A front-page article yesterday about technology advances that made it possible to unlock more oil from old fields misstated Saudi Arabia’s total reserves, which are about a quarter of the world’s proven total. It is 260 billion barrels, not million.
Monday, March 05, 2007
A Year Later, Jeff Blankfort Is On the Bullseye. (A Must Read for progressives).
I was surfing through a friendly blog called PEACEPALESTINE and I read this interview with US journalist (a real one) Jeffrey Blankfort. If you are wondering how Israel comes to be defended by the US at the United Nations without fail read this.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Jeffrey Blankfort interview (a MUST read)
Tel-Aviv and Washington are linked in the Middle East. That's a fact. But the importance of this link in Washington's colonial politics is being debated in the anti-imperialist movement. For the US, Jewish, anti-Zionist journalist Jeffrey Blankfort, Israeli influence is central to US policy and the anti-war movement has failed because of its inability to understand the importance of this lobby. Having developed a radical approach to this question, going so far as to deny the energy factor in the war in Iraq, Mr. Blankfort nonetheless opens interesting paths on Zionist influence in the United States. We reproduce an interview he gave to journalist Silvia Cattori.
Jeffrey Blankfort is a US journalist and producer of radio programs on KPOO in San Francisco and KZYX in Mendocino, in Northern California, and was formerly at KPFT/Pacifica in Houston, until they purged the political programming to better lull their listeners to sleep with music. Engaged in the political fight in favor of the Palestinians and for the creation of one binational state in Palestine since the 70s, he has become one of the favorite targets of US Zionists while also attracting the animosity of a part of the US left grouped around Noam Chomsky, who reproaches Blankfort for his "lobby obsession". He was editor of the Middle East Labor Bulletin and co-founder of the Labor Committee of the Middle East. Also, he was a founding member of the November 29 Coalition on Palestine.
Silvia Cattori: Washington and Tel-Aviv are intensifying their threats against Iran. In your opinion, does Israel have a precise national interest in weakening, or destroying, numerous Arab neighbors and to what degree does it succeed in orienting US policy towards new aggression in the Middle East?
Jeffrey Blankfort: My position is, and I have written an article about it, that the war in Iraq was not a war for oil, but was a war conceived by the neo-cons and the pro-Israeli lobby in the United States to benefit Israel, and to elevate Israel to a very important position in the Middle East, as a part of a plan to achieve overall US global control. This is what was called for in the document of the "Project for a New American Century” or PNAC. And even though a number of prominent people, politicians as well as military people, have said that this was a war for Israel, the anti-war movement will not consider that at all.
And right at this moment, the only segment of the American society that is pushing the US administration to confront Iran, happens to be the Jewish establishment or the lobby, whose main focus for months – groups like AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, but also other Jewish organizations-- has been to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.
The left and the anti-war movement are so focused on blaming everything on US imperialism on one hand, and avoiding the provoking of what they fear will be "anti-Semitism" on the other, that they have gone further from putting any blame on Israel than have elements of the mainstream. And so, having paid no price for pushing the US into the war in Iraq – and not only this war, but the first Gulf war – they are preparing to do the same with Iran. There is no lobby like it.
S.C.: In other words, the US has become a satellite of Israel and acts in function with Israel's interests? Is this thesis not the opposite of that of Chomsky and of the left in general, for whom it is the US that uses Israel? That there is a convergence of interests between the US and Israel, and that Israel is simply the US's cop on the ground in exchange for services rendered by the US in the Middle East?
Jeffrey Blankfort: Yes, Chomsky tends to simplify US politics, blaming everything on the elites and whoever is in the White House while avoiding the role of Congress. Today, eleven members of the Senate are Jewish, that is 11% of the 100 members while only 2% of the American population is Jewish. He and his supporters, either directly or indirectly, raise the spectre of anti-Semitism, of provoking anti-Semitism, and what happens is that people keep their mouth shut. Now, Chomsky, who was a Zionist when he was younger--he lived in Israel, he has friends in Israel, was considering moving to Israel-- admitted in 1974 that this might influence his perspective – and he wanted his readers to know that. He wrote this in 1974 and yet few people who read Chomsky today know that. They do not know that he was Zionist, that he considered living in Israel.
In fact, for years he did not speak about Israel while he was speaking out about the US in Central America and Vietnam. It was a mutual friend of ours, Dr. Israel Shahak, who convinced Chomsky that he should speak up against what Israel is doing to the Palestinians. It is interesting that the most important book that Chomsky wrote about the Israeli-Palestinian issue, The Fateful Triangle, begins actually with a defence of Israel, a defence in the sense that while acknowledging all the Israeli crimes against the Palestinians, he blames the US for allowing it to happen. Now, this defence, I would say, could be used by Pinochet in Chile or any dictator the US has supported around the world, to take the primary responsibility from them and place it on the US. And I don’t buy this. And most people who understand the situation, don’t buy it either when they come to look at it. A number of friends of mine, who are friends of Chomsky, have come to agree with me. The problem is, I would say, as fellow academics, that they don't feel comfortable criticizing Chomsky, particularly since he is often attacked by the right wing.
He has defended many people who have been under attack and has thus gained their loyalty. He also has been a mentor to a number of academics, and ironically, Chomsky has been the doorway for so many people to become involved in politics. They read Chomsky, and they become excited about political work. And it is only later, if they are fortunate, that they discover that Chomsky not only opens the door, he closes it as well!
S.C.: Which would mean that Chomsky gives less importance to the pro-Israeli lobby than it has? Has Chomsky upheld unjust options for the Palestinians in order to preserve Israel, for which he has an emotional attachment? Is this a unique case or has Chomsky defended the indefensible?
Jeffrey Blankfort: For the most part. On most other subjects, he is more open. On this particular one, he won’t even debate the issue. In 1991 we had an exchange that was published in a left newspaper in New York, the National Guardian, and a friend there wanted to set up a debate between Chomsky and myself on the issue of the Israel lobby at the Socialist Scholars Conference. Chomsky refused, writing "that it would not be useful." After his refusal, I asked a professor in California, Joel Beinin, whom I know, and who takes Chomsky’s position, if he would debate me. His response was identical: "it would not be useful!"
S.C.: On Iran, which today is caught in a vise, is Chomsky, in your opinion, also minimizing the role of the lobby acting in favor of Israel in the United States?
Jeffrey Blankfort: Regarding Iran, Chomsky and the others seem to be ignoring the campaign that the lobby is waging to get us into another war, one that will be far more catastrophic than the disaster that has taken place in Iraq. There is a coalition of the 12 leading Jewish women's organizations, representing a million Jewish women, calling itself "One Voice for Israel," that formed in 2002 in response to the bad publicity Israel received over the destruction of Jenin. Each year, in what it calls "Take-5," it gets it gets it members to call the White House at the same time and then on another day, to do the same to Congress. Each time they have done it, they have tied up the Capitol switchboard. It is one of the ways in which they show their power.
This coming February 22nd, they will be phoning President Bush to express their opinion on what he should do about Iran, and its development of nuclear energy or weapons. This a kind of operation that goes on all the time, but it is not even an issue or even known about by the anti-war movement, or by the left, and Professor Chomsky has written to me and others that he is not interested in the issue.
When two years ago, the same person who invited him to have a debate with me in 1991, asked Chomsky again if he would do it, he refused, dismissing my "preoccupation" with the lobby. He also writes that he refuses to read the article that I wrote about him. This is hardly the response of an intellectual. I find it interesting that he is willing to debate Alan Dershowitz, because that is fairly easy, but he won't debate someone on the left or at least on this issue. And that is where the debate should take place.
S.C.: Do you think that other countries have their equivalent of AIPAC?
Jeffrey Blankfort: AIPAC is very unusual because while it is a registered lobby for Israel, it does not have to register as a foreign lobby. And that gives it a unique situation in the country. In every hearing in the Congress that involves Middle East issues, you have staff members of AIPAC sitting in these committee hearings. No other lobbies, foreign lobbies, have this privilege. And they also write the legislation that Congress passes regarding the Middle East. For example, the recent Syrian Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act, which was passed a couple of years ago and which lead to what we see in Lebanon and Syria today was written by AIPAC which later bragged about it. It is not a secret. The only people that pretend they don't know it is the Left. It's on AIPAC's website, it is in their publications. AIPAC also provides interns - young, bright Jewish college students to work in the offices of members of Congress. They go to a member of Congress and say: "We have this young person who is interested in working on Capitol Hill, they will come one year and they will work in your office." No member of Congress is about to refuse a volunteer.
Also AIPAC has a special foundation that provides free trips for members of Congress to Israel. Last year over a hundred members of Congress went to Israel, on a free trip, paid for by this foundation. Now there is a big debate about such trips in Congress paid for by various lobbies, but I do not believe that anything is going to happen there that would negatively affect AIPAC. Congress will make an exception when it comes to Israel. What is interesting is we have a country to the South of us called Mexico. Mexico is far more important to the United States, to our economy, and also there are many more people of Mexican-American extraction than Jews.
There are thousands of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans who work here and are responsible for growing and picking the farm produce in the United States. And yet we don’t have Congressional delegations going to Mexico, we don’t have Congress talking about the importance of Mexico. If they go to Mexico, they go for a vacation, and yet here the focus is on Israel simply because of two things: money and intimidation. The Democratic Party has for years relied on wealthy Jewish donors for the majority of its contributions. AIPAC itself does not give money. AIPAC coordinates where the money should go, so if you are a wealthy Jewish donor and you want to do something to help Israel’s cause, AIPAC will let you know where to give it. Also, around the country, there are now about three dozen political action committees or PACs that exist only to give money to candidates who support Israel. None of them are identified by a name that has anything to do with Israel; so here in California we have something called the Northern Californians for Good Government”. You have in St.Louis, Missouri, the St. Louisans for Good Government. The biggest one is called the National PAC, NPAC. Then you have the Hudson Valley Political Action committee, Desert Caucus, et cetera.
If you look at the name of these committees, you have no idea what they are for, whereas the other lobbies identify themselves by their special interest. Why not Jewish supporters of Israel? But even more important for Democrats, and for some Republicans, is the money contributed by individual Jews. For example, in 2002, an Egyptian-born Israeli, named Haim Saban, who came to the United States and made billions of dollars with a Saturday morning children's program, gave $12.3 million dollars to the Democratic party, which was only about a million and a half dollars less than the arm manufacturers political action committees gave to the both political parties.
Now, this is just one man. And also Haim Saban, who founded the Saban Institute at the Brookings Institute which deals with Israeli issues,is also a big supporter AIPAC, and he funds events in Washington where AIPAC trains college students for pro-Israel advocacy. University campuses are a main battleground for the Jewish forces lobbying for Israel they have come together as the Israel Campus Coalition, 28 organizations, including AIPAC with Israel at the top of their agenda.
Today, a main lobby focus is to get to the colleges campuses to stop divestment programs directed towards Israel. They also are trying to influence the next generation of community leaders who are in the universities at the moment to act in Israel's behalf.
S.C.: To help the Palestinians get justice, those who support them -- or who at least pretend to -- must speak the truth. However, it seems as if, even in their own camp, this truth is suffocated. Do you think that in the US, as in Europe, this solidarity has failed because it is led by people who are there to put breaks on any criticism of Israel? Do you think Chomsky's influence is exercised in this way?
Jeffrey Blankfort: The pro-Palestinian movement has been totally ineffectual here for a couple of reasons. One is they refuse to recognize the role the lobby plays. That‘s like going out to play a football game, but you don’t go to the stadium, you go a shopping mall instead. If you are not on the field where the game is played you are not going to win.
So here is the most powerful lobby in the United States, which the Palestinian solidarity movement has ignored with the exception of an occasional picket of AIPAC. One of the reasons is it has been influenced by certain ideological Marxist groups that are still living in another day and age where lobbies did not play a part. I have been told by political activists that to talk about the lobby is not Marxist, or talk about the lobby is not socialist. And my response is that it exists, it’s real, and that is what's important. Also, there are many self-styled Jewish anti-Zionists in the leadership positions in the movement who claim that to blame the lobby is to provoke anti-Semitism. In this, they are what I call, "Jewish exceptionalists" who bar any criticism from acts that Jews do collectively, such as lobbying for Israel which makes them, in practice, scarcely distinguishable from Zionists.
And what happens is I hear all of these people dismissing the lobby and quoting Chomsky verbatim without even mentioning his name.
His influence on them is so critical, so powerful, that they internalize Chomsky. And so what happens is you have a movement that refuses to recognize the major opponent of the Palestinians on American soil.
Chomsky came out against divestment at MIT, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he teaches, and where he was able to water down a divestment resolution. Then he came out two weeks later and attacked the whole divestment issue. He is against sanctions against Israel, he is against divestment, he has not revealed any kind of agenda that would change things other than having people “write letters to the editor”.
He never mentions Congress, he never mentions the Appropriation committees. If he mentions aid to Congress, he won’t say you have to stop it. He will mention it like it a fact of life, like it’s raining or it’s sunny. I wrote to him about this and he was not very friendly when he wrote back.
In 1988-95 I published a magazine called the Middle East Labor Bulletin which Chomsky subscribed to. In the magazine I had a special section on the Israel lobby and Congress, in which I revealed the names of the Congress people who were in bed with the lobby and I published the sources, most of which came from the Jewish press. So anyone reading the magazine would have had ample proof about control by the lobby of Congress. I recently reread some of the issues published twelve years ago, and they could have been written today, so he can't play ignorant. I just believe his early Zionist leanings and his fears for the future of Jews is so great that it's like he's a child refusing to face the truth. It is unfortunate.
Chomsky is what we call here in this country, a gatekeeper. He is also a gatekeeper on another critical subject, the events of 9/11, dismissing the many questions that have been raised about the official narrative of the Bush administration on the attack on the World Trade Centre. Chomsky says there is no basis to question Mr. Bush's 9/11 story. So most of the criticism that he is getting is from people who have been doing research on 9/11, while he continues to say the story that the Bush administration has told is the truth. So the role he pushes today on the international stage is, as far as I am concerned, a reactionary one.
He says a lot of very positive things much of which I agree with, and again, I know many people who say they were introduced to the political world by Chomsky. He has clearly turned people on. But today, it may be a dialectical situation, now he turns people off, or in the wrong direction.
S.C.: Is your thesis on Chomsky, that he ignores the influence of AIPAC and other similar institutions in US wars in the Middle East, and has a negative impact on solidarity movements, shared by many other intellectuals?
Jeffrey Blankfort: I am in a minority, but I do have an extensive mailing list, I do have a radio program, actually I have two radio programs, and one radio program happens to be in an area which is not Israeli occupied territory and where I can talk about the lobby, I can talk about Israel the way I am talking about it now. The Zionists tried to get me off the air but they were not effective.
One of the ways they intimidate people is through the various Jewish organizations. Each has taken on a different role to play. One important one is the Anti-Defamation League, whose main job is to defame, intimidate and spy on people who are critical of Israel. I was one of them who was spied on.
Its agent infiltrated our organization, the Labor Committee on the Middle East of which I was the co-founder in 1987. Then we learned that they were spying on hundreds of organizations across the political spectrum and thousands of individuals, twelve thousand individuals, six hundred organizations.
I was able to get my ADL files to find out that they had spied on me illegally, and I sued them.
I went out to court with two other activists and after ten years they agreed to settle without me having to sign a confidentiality agreement. So I always talk about this organization.
The person who spied on me for the ADL, was also working for South African intelligence. We had a big anti-apartheid movement in this country. Basically, Israel, the Israel lobby and South Africa were on the same page, very close allies. They were allies socially, culturally and militarily. This is something that unfortunately the anti-apartheid movement also refused to deal with because of Zionist pressure.
I would say the problem with building a real political movement in the United States is blocked by Zionists and their refusal, like Chomsky, to openly deal with Zionism and its role in this country.
Back in 1988, when in the early months of the first Intifada, the anti-intervention movement refused to support a demand that Israel end its occupation of Palestinian land, a Native American a leader told me that the problem with the American movement was that there are too many Liberal Zionists in it. And this is the truth.
I never use his name, because if I publish it, he will then be attacked as being anti-Semitic.
I have been attacked as a self-hating Jew, as an anti-Semite, but it does not matter to me because I consider the accusation of anti-Semitism to be the first refuge of scoundrels. Patriotism is the last refuge, anti-Semitism is the first. In this country it has been used to silence so many people. And this is one of the reasons I am against specifically Jewish organizations wanting to lead the fight for Palestine. What happens is that there are many anti-Zionist Jews, or who claim to be anti-Zionist, who say "we, as anti-Zionists Jews, should provide the leadership so that other people will see that not all the Jews are for Israel”.
And I am totally against that because all Americans pay their taxes and thus support Israel. And this is an American issue. And by putting it out that Jews are the leaders, that Jews, anti Zionists Jews are doing this, what it says to non-Jews is: they can do this because they are Jewish. It has been tried, so far it has been a failure.
So when I speak, I speak not as a Jew, but as a human being. That's why when I first went to the Middle East in 1970, to Lebanon and Jordan, I did not tell people I was Jewish. I did not go there as a Jew, I went there as a journalist.
It was not important to be South African to oppose apartheid, it was not necessary to be a Nicaraguan to oppose the Contras, or to be a Vietnamese to oppose the Vietnam war. What does being Jewish have to do with opposing what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians. In fact, Jews should be very careful about the leadership role. It is not the place for Jews, for people who identify as Jews. The irony is that the people who are most quoted, who speak most on this issue in the US are all Jews who are ultimately protective of Israel.
Chomsky, of course, is the most important one. They criticize Israel, you see, because that's important, you have to do that, but they deflect the main responsibility on to the US and thus while not absolving Israel, shield it from punishment such as sanctions, boycotts and divestment.
S.C.: You just said that you were accused of anti-Semitism. Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, for example, was recently accused by the French dailies "Liberation" and "Le Monde" of having uttered "anti-Semitic" remarks. Do you not think that this accusation has become more difficult to exploit in the face of a pubic opinion that has discovered that it has been manipulated for political ends?
Jeffrey Blankfort: Well, they see it, but they are afraid to speak of it. Because the price for criticizing Jews, as Jews, is big in the US. But also, as you see, in France, in Germany, in Canada, and so on, Austria. You can criticize any other national group, but to criticize Jews collectively, not Jews as Jews, but the Jewish establishment is to jeopardize your career.
So even if, privately, people say one thing, they won't say it publicly. I occasional help to get progressive Palestinians and Israelis interview ed by the media in the San Francisco area. It used to be more open, I would say, on mainstream radio than it is today. Back in 1984, I was able to place an Israeli soldier, a reservist, who refused to serve in Lebanon, on the biggest radio talk show in San Francisco. He told the truth about the Lebanon war, that the Palestinians were not shelling Lebanon, and in second hour of the program, which was broadcast to a national audience, someone, with a strong accent, called and asked "who is responsible for putting this communist on the air?" The talk show host said that he was, but in fact it was the producer who had arranged for my friend to be on the air. Very soon afterward, that talk show host, who was the most popular radio programmer in San Francisco, was replaced by a Zionist who is there to this day and who is such a Zionist that every year, when they have an Israeli Day celebration in San Francisco, he is the master of ceremonies. On the airwaves, on the major networks, you will find either among the owners or the more important decision making positions, people who are clearly Zionists. The head of CBS news, Leslie Moonves, for example, is the great-nephew of David Ben Gurion.
Most people cannot or don't want to believe it when I speak of Jewish influence in the media. I read the Jewish press, and they have information on that subject that does not get published in the mainstream press. This is basically where I get most of my information, and I have found it to be credible. One paper that is particularly useful is The Forward, a Jewish weekly that is like the Wall Street Journal for Jews, because it has a lot of good information that you don’t find in any other publication.
What is most interesting is that most of the people I know, who are fighting for the Palestinians in the US, never read the Jewish press. And to me, if you don’t do that, you are not serious. Because we cannot do anything in this country about what is happening in Palestine directly. But what we can do in the United States is work to weaken Israel’s support here, to expose the Israel lobby and undermine Israel's position in the United States. When we weaken Israel’s support, we strengthen the Palestinian position.
S.C.: Aren't a number of people, touched by the misery of the Palestinians and the Iraqis, more and more conscious that the media lies?
Jeffrey Blankfort: Well, of course, the newspapers are lying, but while there is more information on the internet, that, too, even from our side, is not always reliable and we have to be careful not just to believe something we read there because it is what we want to believe.
The Bay Area, used to have seven or eight newspapers. Now there are barely two and a half. And they have become more like English tabloids, they are competing with television. Unlike Europe, the quality of television here is very poor, and people have become addicted to it. And they are also addicted to portable musical instruments like CD and MP3 players, and now there is the iPod. It is not very promising and also the political arena here doesn’t give much opportunity to play. We have two parties that, essentially, are the same, two wings of the capitalist party. One pacifies the people, that's the Democrats, and the other eliminates them, that's the Republicans. They argue or pretend to about domestic issues, but when it comes to Israel they lock arms together. So for example you may have women in Congress fighting for the right to have an abortion. They join with the most right wing, anti-women members of Congress in the Senate when it comes to supporting Israel. This is never commented on or discussed within the left! It is very depressing because I don’t see much change although there were a couple of protests at local AIPAC meetings, but there is no clear connection made between the lobby and Congress and what is going on in Israel-Palestine. And I don’t see much improvement taking place. So, I cannot even say what can happen that will change it. At some point, there will be a change. I don’t know how it’s going to come around, how it’s going to come about. But I don’t see at the moment any bright prospect for the future.
S.C.: If the orientation of the media doesn't change, and if the influence of the pro-Israeli lobby continues apace in the States without ever being denounced by the left, don't you think that will give Israel a free hand to continue to foment wars against Iran, Syria, and Palestine?
Jeffrey Blankfort: The neo-cons who are almost exclusively Jewish and the Israel lobby got the US into the war in Iraq. The father of the President, the first George Bush was against it, the oil companies were against it. And despite the fact that the war is going so badly, they did not have to pay a political price because only a few isolated columnists, and but a few from the left, and none representing the anti-war movement in this country, wrote articles about that. So now, the same forces are now pushing for a US confrontation with Iran, although I don’t think that will happen, simply because the United States is bogged down in Iraq. Besides, should the US attack Iran, the troops that the US has trained in Iraq who are very pro-Iranian and connected to the two parties the SCIRI and the Dawa that were founded in Iran in 1982 and fought on the side of Iran against Saddam, will certainly respond and Iraq will explode even more than it already has. That is why I don't think the US is going to do it, even though everybody over here seems to think so. But if the US does attack Iran, that is the ultimate proof that the Zionist lobby has total control over US policy, and I don't think it is at that point now. What is happening is interesting: Bush is weak at the moment, Republicans are deserting him, he has lost votes in Congress, he will get his Supreme Court Justice, Alito, approved but AIPAC has criticized him for being soft on Iran; AIPAC has criticized him publicly for not pushing Iran before the Security Council, even though AIPAC knows that if the US brought Iran before the Security Council they w ill not get the vote against Iran. There is considerable speculation that Israel will attack Iran, even if the US is hesitant, because this is an election year and Israel knows and the lobby knows that anything Israel does at such times will be applauded by Congress and we may end up with the same result in Iraq.
It's interesting that newspapers note as do newscasters on the air, that no criticism is likely to be made of Israel by the president or members of Congress during an election year but they never explain why. The left, led by Chomsky, pretends to be unaware that the question even exists. The irony is, if you read the mainstream press, you will find more about what is going on in terms of the lobby, than if you read the left press, such as it is. The newspaper, The Forward, is a more important newspaper to read because it tells what’s going on with the lobby, and more recently the investigation into AIPAC which the left, again, pays no attention to. Others ask, if AIPAC is so strong, why would they investigate AIPAC? My response is there are people in Washington, in the intelligence department, in the intelligence agencies who, for their own reasons, are very much worried about the Israelization of US foreign policy. And these people in Washington, or people who used to work in Washington, have had a long term fight against the Israel lobby. The left, again, is not a participant in this, unfortunately. And this is why you have people who know what Israel is doing in Washington, what the lobby is doing in Washington and they want to stop it.
S.C.: To come back to that which separates you from Chomsky on the Palestinian question, could we say that you want the Palestinians to win while Chomsky doesn't want the Israelis to lose?
Jeffrey Blankfort: I wouldn't put it exactly that way but I do believe that the Palestinians have the priority to decide what happens in Israel and Palestine and that Chomsky is more concerned about the future of Israel and the welfare of Jews. He opposes a one-state solution and I believe single state is the only answer but I don’t argue here for that because we are not the ones to determine that. But I do give the priority to the Palestinians and he gives it to the Israelis. And that's the difference between us.
Original in French: http://www.voltairenet.org/article135702.html
http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/editorials/signs_TheChomskyBlankfortPolemic.php
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Jeffrey Blankfort interview (a MUST read)
Tel-Aviv and Washington are linked in the Middle East. That's a fact. But the importance of this link in Washington's colonial politics is being debated in the anti-imperialist movement. For the US, Jewish, anti-Zionist journalist Jeffrey Blankfort, Israeli influence is central to US policy and the anti-war movement has failed because of its inability to understand the importance of this lobby. Having developed a radical approach to this question, going so far as to deny the energy factor in the war in Iraq, Mr. Blankfort nonetheless opens interesting paths on Zionist influence in the United States. We reproduce an interview he gave to journalist Silvia Cattori.
Jeffrey Blankfort is a US journalist and producer of radio programs on KPOO in San Francisco and KZYX in Mendocino, in Northern California, and was formerly at KPFT/Pacifica in Houston, until they purged the political programming to better lull their listeners to sleep with music. Engaged in the political fight in favor of the Palestinians and for the creation of one binational state in Palestine since the 70s, he has become one of the favorite targets of US Zionists while also attracting the animosity of a part of the US left grouped around Noam Chomsky, who reproaches Blankfort for his "lobby obsession". He was editor of the Middle East Labor Bulletin and co-founder of the Labor Committee of the Middle East. Also, he was a founding member of the November 29 Coalition on Palestine.
Silvia Cattori: Washington and Tel-Aviv are intensifying their threats against Iran. In your opinion, does Israel have a precise national interest in weakening, or destroying, numerous Arab neighbors and to what degree does it succeed in orienting US policy towards new aggression in the Middle East?
Jeffrey Blankfort: My position is, and I have written an article about it, that the war in Iraq was not a war for oil, but was a war conceived by the neo-cons and the pro-Israeli lobby in the United States to benefit Israel, and to elevate Israel to a very important position in the Middle East, as a part of a plan to achieve overall US global control. This is what was called for in the document of the "Project for a New American Century” or PNAC. And even though a number of prominent people, politicians as well as military people, have said that this was a war for Israel, the anti-war movement will not consider that at all.
And right at this moment, the only segment of the American society that is pushing the US administration to confront Iran, happens to be the Jewish establishment or the lobby, whose main focus for months – groups like AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, but also other Jewish organizations-- has been to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.
The left and the anti-war movement are so focused on blaming everything on US imperialism on one hand, and avoiding the provoking of what they fear will be "anti-Semitism" on the other, that they have gone further from putting any blame on Israel than have elements of the mainstream. And so, having paid no price for pushing the US into the war in Iraq – and not only this war, but the first Gulf war – they are preparing to do the same with Iran. There is no lobby like it.
S.C.: In other words, the US has become a satellite of Israel and acts in function with Israel's interests? Is this thesis not the opposite of that of Chomsky and of the left in general, for whom it is the US that uses Israel? That there is a convergence of interests between the US and Israel, and that Israel is simply the US's cop on the ground in exchange for services rendered by the US in the Middle East?
Jeffrey Blankfort: Yes, Chomsky tends to simplify US politics, blaming everything on the elites and whoever is in the White House while avoiding the role of Congress. Today, eleven members of the Senate are Jewish, that is 11% of the 100 members while only 2% of the American population is Jewish. He and his supporters, either directly or indirectly, raise the spectre of anti-Semitism, of provoking anti-Semitism, and what happens is that people keep their mouth shut. Now, Chomsky, who was a Zionist when he was younger--he lived in Israel, he has friends in Israel, was considering moving to Israel-- admitted in 1974 that this might influence his perspective – and he wanted his readers to know that. He wrote this in 1974 and yet few people who read Chomsky today know that. They do not know that he was Zionist, that he considered living in Israel.
In fact, for years he did not speak about Israel while he was speaking out about the US in Central America and Vietnam. It was a mutual friend of ours, Dr. Israel Shahak, who convinced Chomsky that he should speak up against what Israel is doing to the Palestinians. It is interesting that the most important book that Chomsky wrote about the Israeli-Palestinian issue, The Fateful Triangle, begins actually with a defence of Israel, a defence in the sense that while acknowledging all the Israeli crimes against the Palestinians, he blames the US for allowing it to happen. Now, this defence, I would say, could be used by Pinochet in Chile or any dictator the US has supported around the world, to take the primary responsibility from them and place it on the US. And I don’t buy this. And most people who understand the situation, don’t buy it either when they come to look at it. A number of friends of mine, who are friends of Chomsky, have come to agree with me. The problem is, I would say, as fellow academics, that they don't feel comfortable criticizing Chomsky, particularly since he is often attacked by the right wing.
He has defended many people who have been under attack and has thus gained their loyalty. He also has been a mentor to a number of academics, and ironically, Chomsky has been the doorway for so many people to become involved in politics. They read Chomsky, and they become excited about political work. And it is only later, if they are fortunate, that they discover that Chomsky not only opens the door, he closes it as well!
S.C.: Which would mean that Chomsky gives less importance to the pro-Israeli lobby than it has? Has Chomsky upheld unjust options for the Palestinians in order to preserve Israel, for which he has an emotional attachment? Is this a unique case or has Chomsky defended the indefensible?
Jeffrey Blankfort: For the most part. On most other subjects, he is more open. On this particular one, he won’t even debate the issue. In 1991 we had an exchange that was published in a left newspaper in New York, the National Guardian, and a friend there wanted to set up a debate between Chomsky and myself on the issue of the Israel lobby at the Socialist Scholars Conference. Chomsky refused, writing "that it would not be useful." After his refusal, I asked a professor in California, Joel Beinin, whom I know, and who takes Chomsky’s position, if he would debate me. His response was identical: "it would not be useful!"
S.C.: On Iran, which today is caught in a vise, is Chomsky, in your opinion, also minimizing the role of the lobby acting in favor of Israel in the United States?
Jeffrey Blankfort: Regarding Iran, Chomsky and the others seem to be ignoring the campaign that the lobby is waging to get us into another war, one that will be far more catastrophic than the disaster that has taken place in Iraq. There is a coalition of the 12 leading Jewish women's organizations, representing a million Jewish women, calling itself "One Voice for Israel," that formed in 2002 in response to the bad publicity Israel received over the destruction of Jenin. Each year, in what it calls "Take-5," it gets it gets it members to call the White House at the same time and then on another day, to do the same to Congress. Each time they have done it, they have tied up the Capitol switchboard. It is one of the ways in which they show their power.
This coming February 22nd, they will be phoning President Bush to express their opinion on what he should do about Iran, and its development of nuclear energy or weapons. This a kind of operation that goes on all the time, but it is not even an issue or even known about by the anti-war movement, or by the left, and Professor Chomsky has written to me and others that he is not interested in the issue.
When two years ago, the same person who invited him to have a debate with me in 1991, asked Chomsky again if he would do it, he refused, dismissing my "preoccupation" with the lobby. He also writes that he refuses to read the article that I wrote about him. This is hardly the response of an intellectual. I find it interesting that he is willing to debate Alan Dershowitz, because that is fairly easy, but he won't debate someone on the left or at least on this issue. And that is where the debate should take place.
S.C.: Do you think that other countries have their equivalent of AIPAC?
Jeffrey Blankfort: AIPAC is very unusual because while it is a registered lobby for Israel, it does not have to register as a foreign lobby. And that gives it a unique situation in the country. In every hearing in the Congress that involves Middle East issues, you have staff members of AIPAC sitting in these committee hearings. No other lobbies, foreign lobbies, have this privilege. And they also write the legislation that Congress passes regarding the Middle East. For example, the recent Syrian Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act, which was passed a couple of years ago and which lead to what we see in Lebanon and Syria today was written by AIPAC which later bragged about it. It is not a secret. The only people that pretend they don't know it is the Left. It's on AIPAC's website, it is in their publications. AIPAC also provides interns - young, bright Jewish college students to work in the offices of members of Congress. They go to a member of Congress and say: "We have this young person who is interested in working on Capitol Hill, they will come one year and they will work in your office." No member of Congress is about to refuse a volunteer.
Also AIPAC has a special foundation that provides free trips for members of Congress to Israel. Last year over a hundred members of Congress went to Israel, on a free trip, paid for by this foundation. Now there is a big debate about such trips in Congress paid for by various lobbies, but I do not believe that anything is going to happen there that would negatively affect AIPAC. Congress will make an exception when it comes to Israel. What is interesting is we have a country to the South of us called Mexico. Mexico is far more important to the United States, to our economy, and also there are many more people of Mexican-American extraction than Jews.
There are thousands of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans who work here and are responsible for growing and picking the farm produce in the United States. And yet we don’t have Congressional delegations going to Mexico, we don’t have Congress talking about the importance of Mexico. If they go to Mexico, they go for a vacation, and yet here the focus is on Israel simply because of two things: money and intimidation. The Democratic Party has for years relied on wealthy Jewish donors for the majority of its contributions. AIPAC itself does not give money. AIPAC coordinates where the money should go, so if you are a wealthy Jewish donor and you want to do something to help Israel’s cause, AIPAC will let you know where to give it. Also, around the country, there are now about three dozen political action committees or PACs that exist only to give money to candidates who support Israel. None of them are identified by a name that has anything to do with Israel; so here in California we have something called the Northern Californians for Good Government”. You have in St.Louis, Missouri, the St. Louisans for Good Government. The biggest one is called the National PAC, NPAC. Then you have the Hudson Valley Political Action committee, Desert Caucus, et cetera.
If you look at the name of these committees, you have no idea what they are for, whereas the other lobbies identify themselves by their special interest. Why not Jewish supporters of Israel? But even more important for Democrats, and for some Republicans, is the money contributed by individual Jews. For example, in 2002, an Egyptian-born Israeli, named Haim Saban, who came to the United States and made billions of dollars with a Saturday morning children's program, gave $12.3 million dollars to the Democratic party, which was only about a million and a half dollars less than the arm manufacturers political action committees gave to the both political parties.
Now, this is just one man. And also Haim Saban, who founded the Saban Institute at the Brookings Institute which deals with Israeli issues,is also a big supporter AIPAC, and he funds events in Washington where AIPAC trains college students for pro-Israel advocacy. University campuses are a main battleground for the Jewish forces lobbying for Israel they have come together as the Israel Campus Coalition, 28 organizations, including AIPAC with Israel at the top of their agenda.
Today, a main lobby focus is to get to the colleges campuses to stop divestment programs directed towards Israel. They also are trying to influence the next generation of community leaders who are in the universities at the moment to act in Israel's behalf.
S.C.: To help the Palestinians get justice, those who support them -- or who at least pretend to -- must speak the truth. However, it seems as if, even in their own camp, this truth is suffocated. Do you think that in the US, as in Europe, this solidarity has failed because it is led by people who are there to put breaks on any criticism of Israel? Do you think Chomsky's influence is exercised in this way?
Jeffrey Blankfort: The pro-Palestinian movement has been totally ineffectual here for a couple of reasons. One is they refuse to recognize the role the lobby plays. That‘s like going out to play a football game, but you don’t go to the stadium, you go a shopping mall instead. If you are not on the field where the game is played you are not going to win.
So here is the most powerful lobby in the United States, which the Palestinian solidarity movement has ignored with the exception of an occasional picket of AIPAC. One of the reasons is it has been influenced by certain ideological Marxist groups that are still living in another day and age where lobbies did not play a part. I have been told by political activists that to talk about the lobby is not Marxist, or talk about the lobby is not socialist. And my response is that it exists, it’s real, and that is what's important. Also, there are many self-styled Jewish anti-Zionists in the leadership positions in the movement who claim that to blame the lobby is to provoke anti-Semitism. In this, they are what I call, "Jewish exceptionalists" who bar any criticism from acts that Jews do collectively, such as lobbying for Israel which makes them, in practice, scarcely distinguishable from Zionists.
And what happens is I hear all of these people dismissing the lobby and quoting Chomsky verbatim without even mentioning his name.
His influence on them is so critical, so powerful, that they internalize Chomsky. And so what happens is you have a movement that refuses to recognize the major opponent of the Palestinians on American soil.
Chomsky came out against divestment at MIT, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he teaches, and where he was able to water down a divestment resolution. Then he came out two weeks later and attacked the whole divestment issue. He is against sanctions against Israel, he is against divestment, he has not revealed any kind of agenda that would change things other than having people “write letters to the editor”.
He never mentions Congress, he never mentions the Appropriation committees. If he mentions aid to Congress, he won’t say you have to stop it. He will mention it like it a fact of life, like it’s raining or it’s sunny. I wrote to him about this and he was not very friendly when he wrote back.
In 1988-95 I published a magazine called the Middle East Labor Bulletin which Chomsky subscribed to. In the magazine I had a special section on the Israel lobby and Congress, in which I revealed the names of the Congress people who were in bed with the lobby and I published the sources, most of which came from the Jewish press. So anyone reading the magazine would have had ample proof about control by the lobby of Congress. I recently reread some of the issues published twelve years ago, and they could have been written today, so he can't play ignorant. I just believe his early Zionist leanings and his fears for the future of Jews is so great that it's like he's a child refusing to face the truth. It is unfortunate.
Chomsky is what we call here in this country, a gatekeeper. He is also a gatekeeper on another critical subject, the events of 9/11, dismissing the many questions that have been raised about the official narrative of the Bush administration on the attack on the World Trade Centre. Chomsky says there is no basis to question Mr. Bush's 9/11 story. So most of the criticism that he is getting is from people who have been doing research on 9/11, while he continues to say the story that the Bush administration has told is the truth. So the role he pushes today on the international stage is, as far as I am concerned, a reactionary one.
He says a lot of very positive things much of which I agree with, and again, I know many people who say they were introduced to the political world by Chomsky. He has clearly turned people on. But today, it may be a dialectical situation, now he turns people off, or in the wrong direction.
S.C.: Is your thesis on Chomsky, that he ignores the influence of AIPAC and other similar institutions in US wars in the Middle East, and has a negative impact on solidarity movements, shared by many other intellectuals?
Jeffrey Blankfort: I am in a minority, but I do have an extensive mailing list, I do have a radio program, actually I have two radio programs, and one radio program happens to be in an area which is not Israeli occupied territory and where I can talk about the lobby, I can talk about Israel the way I am talking about it now. The Zionists tried to get me off the air but they were not effective.
One of the ways they intimidate people is through the various Jewish organizations. Each has taken on a different role to play. One important one is the Anti-Defamation League, whose main job is to defame, intimidate and spy on people who are critical of Israel. I was one of them who was spied on.
Its agent infiltrated our organization, the Labor Committee on the Middle East of which I was the co-founder in 1987. Then we learned that they were spying on hundreds of organizations across the political spectrum and thousands of individuals, twelve thousand individuals, six hundred organizations.
I was able to get my ADL files to find out that they had spied on me illegally, and I sued them.
I went out to court with two other activists and after ten years they agreed to settle without me having to sign a confidentiality agreement. So I always talk about this organization.
The person who spied on me for the ADL, was also working for South African intelligence. We had a big anti-apartheid movement in this country. Basically, Israel, the Israel lobby and South Africa were on the same page, very close allies. They were allies socially, culturally and militarily. This is something that unfortunately the anti-apartheid movement also refused to deal with because of Zionist pressure.
I would say the problem with building a real political movement in the United States is blocked by Zionists and their refusal, like Chomsky, to openly deal with Zionism and its role in this country.
Back in 1988, when in the early months of the first Intifada, the anti-intervention movement refused to support a demand that Israel end its occupation of Palestinian land, a Native American a leader told me that the problem with the American movement was that there are too many Liberal Zionists in it. And this is the truth.
I never use his name, because if I publish it, he will then be attacked as being anti-Semitic.
I have been attacked as a self-hating Jew, as an anti-Semite, but it does not matter to me because I consider the accusation of anti-Semitism to be the first refuge of scoundrels. Patriotism is the last refuge, anti-Semitism is the first. In this country it has been used to silence so many people. And this is one of the reasons I am against specifically Jewish organizations wanting to lead the fight for Palestine. What happens is that there are many anti-Zionist Jews, or who claim to be anti-Zionist, who say "we, as anti-Zionists Jews, should provide the leadership so that other people will see that not all the Jews are for Israel”.
And I am totally against that because all Americans pay their taxes and thus support Israel. And this is an American issue. And by putting it out that Jews are the leaders, that Jews, anti Zionists Jews are doing this, what it says to non-Jews is: they can do this because they are Jewish. It has been tried, so far it has been a failure.
So when I speak, I speak not as a Jew, but as a human being. That's why when I first went to the Middle East in 1970, to Lebanon and Jordan, I did not tell people I was Jewish. I did not go there as a Jew, I went there as a journalist.
It was not important to be South African to oppose apartheid, it was not necessary to be a Nicaraguan to oppose the Contras, or to be a Vietnamese to oppose the Vietnam war. What does being Jewish have to do with opposing what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians. In fact, Jews should be very careful about the leadership role. It is not the place for Jews, for people who identify as Jews. The irony is that the people who are most quoted, who speak most on this issue in the US are all Jews who are ultimately protective of Israel.
Chomsky, of course, is the most important one. They criticize Israel, you see, because that's important, you have to do that, but they deflect the main responsibility on to the US and thus while not absolving Israel, shield it from punishment such as sanctions, boycotts and divestment.
S.C.: You just said that you were accused of anti-Semitism. Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, for example, was recently accused by the French dailies "Liberation" and "Le Monde" of having uttered "anti-Semitic" remarks. Do you not think that this accusation has become more difficult to exploit in the face of a pubic opinion that has discovered that it has been manipulated for political ends?
Jeffrey Blankfort: Well, they see it, but they are afraid to speak of it. Because the price for criticizing Jews, as Jews, is big in the US. But also, as you see, in France, in Germany, in Canada, and so on, Austria. You can criticize any other national group, but to criticize Jews collectively, not Jews as Jews, but the Jewish establishment is to jeopardize your career.
So even if, privately, people say one thing, they won't say it publicly. I occasional help to get progressive Palestinians and Israelis interview ed by the media in the San Francisco area. It used to be more open, I would say, on mainstream radio than it is today. Back in 1984, I was able to place an Israeli soldier, a reservist, who refused to serve in Lebanon, on the biggest radio talk show in San Francisco. He told the truth about the Lebanon war, that the Palestinians were not shelling Lebanon, and in second hour of the program, which was broadcast to a national audience, someone, with a strong accent, called and asked "who is responsible for putting this communist on the air?" The talk show host said that he was, but in fact it was the producer who had arranged for my friend to be on the air. Very soon afterward, that talk show host, who was the most popular radio programmer in San Francisco, was replaced by a Zionist who is there to this day and who is such a Zionist that every year, when they have an Israeli Day celebration in San Francisco, he is the master of ceremonies. On the airwaves, on the major networks, you will find either among the owners or the more important decision making positions, people who are clearly Zionists. The head of CBS news, Leslie Moonves, for example, is the great-nephew of David Ben Gurion.
Most people cannot or don't want to believe it when I speak of Jewish influence in the media. I read the Jewish press, and they have information on that subject that does not get published in the mainstream press. This is basically where I get most of my information, and I have found it to be credible. One paper that is particularly useful is The Forward, a Jewish weekly that is like the Wall Street Journal for Jews, because it has a lot of good information that you don’t find in any other publication.
What is most interesting is that most of the people I know, who are fighting for the Palestinians in the US, never read the Jewish press. And to me, if you don’t do that, you are not serious. Because we cannot do anything in this country about what is happening in Palestine directly. But what we can do in the United States is work to weaken Israel’s support here, to expose the Israel lobby and undermine Israel's position in the United States. When we weaken Israel’s support, we strengthen the Palestinian position.
S.C.: Aren't a number of people, touched by the misery of the Palestinians and the Iraqis, more and more conscious that the media lies?
Jeffrey Blankfort: Well, of course, the newspapers are lying, but while there is more information on the internet, that, too, even from our side, is not always reliable and we have to be careful not just to believe something we read there because it is what we want to believe.
The Bay Area, used to have seven or eight newspapers. Now there are barely two and a half. And they have become more like English tabloids, they are competing with television. Unlike Europe, the quality of television here is very poor, and people have become addicted to it. And they are also addicted to portable musical instruments like CD and MP3 players, and now there is the iPod. It is not very promising and also the political arena here doesn’t give much opportunity to play. We have two parties that, essentially, are the same, two wings of the capitalist party. One pacifies the people, that's the Democrats, and the other eliminates them, that's the Republicans. They argue or pretend to about domestic issues, but when it comes to Israel they lock arms together. So for example you may have women in Congress fighting for the right to have an abortion. They join with the most right wing, anti-women members of Congress in the Senate when it comes to supporting Israel. This is never commented on or discussed within the left! It is very depressing because I don’t see much change although there were a couple of protests at local AIPAC meetings, but there is no clear connection made between the lobby and Congress and what is going on in Israel-Palestine. And I don’t see much improvement taking place. So, I cannot even say what can happen that will change it. At some point, there will be a change. I don’t know how it’s going to come around, how it’s going to come about. But I don’t see at the moment any bright prospect for the future.
S.C.: If the orientation of the media doesn't change, and if the influence of the pro-Israeli lobby continues apace in the States without ever being denounced by the left, don't you think that will give Israel a free hand to continue to foment wars against Iran, Syria, and Palestine?
Jeffrey Blankfort: The neo-cons who are almost exclusively Jewish and the Israel lobby got the US into the war in Iraq. The father of the President, the first George Bush was against it, the oil companies were against it. And despite the fact that the war is going so badly, they did not have to pay a political price because only a few isolated columnists, and but a few from the left, and none representing the anti-war movement in this country, wrote articles about that. So now, the same forces are now pushing for a US confrontation with Iran, although I don’t think that will happen, simply because the United States is bogged down in Iraq. Besides, should the US attack Iran, the troops that the US has trained in Iraq who are very pro-Iranian and connected to the two parties the SCIRI and the Dawa that were founded in Iran in 1982 and fought on the side of Iran against Saddam, will certainly respond and Iraq will explode even more than it already has. That is why I don't think the US is going to do it, even though everybody over here seems to think so. But if the US does attack Iran, that is the ultimate proof that the Zionist lobby has total control over US policy, and I don't think it is at that point now. What is happening is interesting: Bush is weak at the moment, Republicans are deserting him, he has lost votes in Congress, he will get his Supreme Court Justice, Alito, approved but AIPAC has criticized him for being soft on Iran; AIPAC has criticized him publicly for not pushing Iran before the Security Council, even though AIPAC knows that if the US brought Iran before the Security Council they w ill not get the vote against Iran. There is considerable speculation that Israel will attack Iran, even if the US is hesitant, because this is an election year and Israel knows and the lobby knows that anything Israel does at such times will be applauded by Congress and we may end up with the same result in Iraq.
It's interesting that newspapers note as do newscasters on the air, that no criticism is likely to be made of Israel by the president or members of Congress during an election year but they never explain why. The left, led by Chomsky, pretends to be unaware that the question even exists. The irony is, if you read the mainstream press, you will find more about what is going on in terms of the lobby, than if you read the left press, such as it is. The newspaper, The Forward, is a more important newspaper to read because it tells what’s going on with the lobby, and more recently the investigation into AIPAC which the left, again, pays no attention to. Others ask, if AIPAC is so strong, why would they investigate AIPAC? My response is there are people in Washington, in the intelligence department, in the intelligence agencies who, for their own reasons, are very much worried about the Israelization of US foreign policy. And these people in Washington, or people who used to work in Washington, have had a long term fight against the Israel lobby. The left, again, is not a participant in this, unfortunately. And this is why you have people who know what Israel is doing in Washington, what the lobby is doing in Washington and they want to stop it.
S.C.: To come back to that which separates you from Chomsky on the Palestinian question, could we say that you want the Palestinians to win while Chomsky doesn't want the Israelis to lose?
Jeffrey Blankfort: I wouldn't put it exactly that way but I do believe that the Palestinians have the priority to decide what happens in Israel and Palestine and that Chomsky is more concerned about the future of Israel and the welfare of Jews. He opposes a one-state solution and I believe single state is the only answer but I don’t argue here for that because we are not the ones to determine that. But I do give the priority to the Palestinians and he gives it to the Israelis. And that's the difference between us.
Original in French: http://www.voltairenet.org/article135702.html
http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/editorials/signs_TheChomskyBlankfortPolemic.php
Monday, February 26, 2007
New York Times Caught With Pants Down.
Fair Use
I thank the BOREV blog for catching The New York Times and its affiliate the Barre Montpellier Times Argus (of Vermont) with their pants down to their ankles in this attack piece against Venezuela.
Here the NYT's piece on Venezuela is given to their Vermont affiliate with instructions on where they may trim the article for consideration of space. And of course the content of the article shows the headline to be if not a lie, then a blooper in the time(s) honored of American tradition of lazy whore jounalism.
As the BOREV blog says:
Of course, this was a Big New York Times Story, so the content, mistakes and all, are going to dominate the Venezuela discussion, like forever. And of course the New York Times syndicates crap like this and sends it to smaller papers around the country. Already today, there is a telling version of the story in Vermont’s tiny Barre Montpelier Times Argus. It’s got a spiffy new headline (“Venezuela arms spending highest in Latin America”), which is simply false, but the funny part is that they forgot to delete the NYT’s “trimming” notes, which explain to local editors what to cut when pressed for space. Take a look at the recommend trims: Leave in all the panic, fellas, but feel free to delete any of the context.
Venezuela arms spending highest in Latin America
February 25, 2007
By SIMON ROMERO
The New York Times
CARACAS, Venezuela — Venezuela's arms spending has climbed to more than $4 billion through the past two years, transforming the nation into Latin America's largest weapons buyer and placing it ahead of other major purchasers in international arms markets like Pakistan and Iran.
Venezuelan military and government officials here say the arms acquisitions, which include dozens of fighter jets and attack helicopters and 100,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles, are needed to circumvent a ban by the United States on sales of American weapons to the country.
They also argue that Venezuela must strengthen its defenses to counter potential military aggression from the United States.
"The United States has tried to paralyze our air power," Gen. Alberto Muller Rojas, a member of President Hugo Chavez's general staff, said in an interview, citing a recent effort by the Bush administration to prevent Venezuela from acquiring replacement parts for American F-16s bought in the 1980s. "We are feeling threatened and like any sovereign nation we are taking steps to strengthen our territorial defense," he said.
This retooling of Venezuela's military strategy, which includes creation of a large civilian reserve force and military assistance to regional allies like Bolivia, has been part of a steadily deteriorating political relationship with the United States.
The Bush administration has repeatedly denied that it has any plans to attack Venezuela, one of the largest sources of imported oil in the United States. But distrust of such statements persists here after the administration tacitly supported a coup that briefly removed Chavez from office in 2002.
Venezuela's escalation of arms spending, up 12.5 percent in 2006, has brought harsh criticism from the Bush administration, which says the buildup is a potentially destabilizing problem in South America and is far more than what would be needed for domestic defense alone.
The spending has also touched off a fierce debate domestically about whether the country needs to be spending billions of dollars on imported weapons when poverty and a surging homicide rate remain glaring problems. Meanwhile, concern has increased among Venezuela's neighbors that its arms purchases could upend regional power balances or lead to a new illicit trade in arms across Venezuela's porous borders.
Jose Sarney, the former Brazilian president and a leading senator, caused a stir this week when he was quoted in the Brazilian newspaper O Globo as describing Venezuela's form of government as "military populism" and "a return to the 1950s," when Venezuela was governed by the army strongman Marcos Perez Jimenez.
"Venezuela is buying arms that are not a threat to the United States but which unbalance forces within the continent," Sarney said. "We cannot let Venezuela become a military power."
Still, officials in the administration of President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil have been hesitant to publicly criticize Venezuela's arms purchases.
The issue remains delicate after the Brazilian company Embraer lost a deal to sell military aircraft to Venezuela because the planes include American technology.
After turning unsuccessfully to Brazil and Spain for military aircraft, Venezuela has become one of the largest customers of Russia's arms industry.
Since 2005, Venezuela has signed contracts with Russia for 24 Sukhoi fighter jets, 50 transport and attack helicopters, and 100,000 assault rifles. Venezuela also has plans to open Latin America's first Kalashnikov factory, to produce the Russian-designed rifles in the city of Maracay.
A report in January by the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency pegged Venezuela's arms purchases in the past two years at $4.3 billion, more than akistan's $3 billion and Iran's $1.7 billion in that period.
In a statement before the House Intelligence Committee, Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, called attention to Chavez's "agenda to neutralize U.S. influence throughout the hemisphere," contrasting Chavez with the "reformist left" exemplified by President Michelle Bachelet of Chile.
Beyond Russia, Venezuela is also considering a venture with Iran, its closest ally outside Latin America, to build a remotely piloted patrol aircraft. Gen. Raul Isaias Baduel, the Venezuelan defense minister, recently told reporters that the project to build 20 of the aircraft could be used to bolster border surveillance and combat environmental destruction in Venezuela. Venezuela is also strengthening military ties with Cuba, sending officers and soldiers there for training.
(BEGIN OPTIONAL TRIM.)
Supporters of the arms buildup contend that under Chavez, who has been in power for eight years, Venezuela has spent proportionately less on its military in relation to the size of its economy than the United States or than other South American countries like Chile and Colombia.
In 2004, the last year for which comparative data were immediately available and before Venezuela's arms buildup intensified, overall defense spending by Venezuela, including arms contracts, was about $1.3 billion and accounted for about 1.4 percent of gross domestic product, compared with 4 percent in the United States and 3.8 percent in Colombia, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, which tracks military spending.
Doubts persist as to how powerful Venezuela's armed forces have become in a regional context, even as they acquire new arms. Military experts here say pilots in the air force still need training to start flying their new Russian fighters. And in terms of troop strength, Venezuela's 34,000-soldier active-duty army still lags behind the armies of Argentina and Brazil, with about 41,400 and 200,000 members respectively, according to GlobalSecurity.org, a Web site that compiles data on military topics.
(END OPTIONAL TRIM.)
Pro-Chavez analysts also say the president is less adventurous in relation to military policy outside Venezuela than predecessors like Luis Herrera Campíns, who supported Argentina in the Falklands War in 1982 to detract attention from a decline in oil revenues and climbing inflation.
But critics of the arms purchases say they are being made with little participation from or discussion with the National Assembly, which recently allowed him to govern by decree for 18 months.
Ricardo Sucre, a political scientist at the Central University of Venezuela, said that the lack of transparency of the weapons contracts had heightened concern that Chavez could be arming parts of the army, the new civilian reserve and partisans like the Frente Francisco de Miranda, a pro-Chavez political group, that would be loyal to him in the event of fractures within the armed forces.
(STORY CAN END HERE. OPTIONAL MATERIAL FOLLOWS.)
Muller Rojas, the president's military adviser, said concern about the arms purchases was overblown, pointing to reports that Venezuela was considering an acquisition of nine diesel-powered submarines from Russia for about $3 billion.
He said the navy had "aspirations" for more submarines, but that no "concrete plan" for such a large contract had been developed.
"We simply have an interest in maintaining peace and stability," Muller Rojas said, describing the Caribbean as a crucial to its military influence. "We have no intent of using the Venezuelan armed forces to repress human rights."
Stop the extradition of Gary Freeman from Canada to the USA.
[ Word format ]
Who Is Gary Freeman And Why Should He Be Allowed To Stay In Canada?
A Canadian family is suffering. They are suffering because a dearly beloved member of their family has been snatched away from them.
Douglas Gary Freeman (Joseph Pannell) is the subject of a United States extradition request stemming from a 1969 incident. He is an innocent man. We do not believe the best interests of justice would be served by uprooting him from his family and returning him to an uncertain fate in the United States.
This fact sheet, prepared by the Family and Friends of Gary Freeman, is designed to answer, as best as we can, questions that may arise when you read or hear about this case in the news.
Who is Gary Freeman?
Douglas Gary Freeman is an African-American born in Washington, D.C. His parents named him Joseph Coleman Pannell, Jr. Heather Mallick, writing in the Saturday, September 10, 2005 issue of the Globe and Mail, cites a United Nations report indicating that blacks in Washington, D.C. live in third world conditions. History indicates that conditions for blacks in Washington, D.C. remain virtually the same from the time of Mr. Freeman's birth. Gary Freeman came to Canada to survive. It is as simple, compelling and literal as that.
He also wanted to ensure that his unborn child would have a father and a home: a place where he hoped there would not be the same fear, discrimination, and lack of equality of opportunity, as in the United States.
Gary has been married to his Canadian wife for over 25 years and they have four children, all Canadian born and college-educated. There is great significance to the chosen name of Douglas Gary Freeman. Douglas is taken from the great African-American abolitionist Frederick Douglass. Gary is taken from the city of Gary, Indiana which elected the first black mayor of a significant American city as a result of the 1965 Voting Rights Act: Richard Hatcher. Freeman, well, that is self-explanatory. Thousands of American slaves, who took the Underground Railroad to Canada, did so because Canada was a safe haven, a place where there was "freedom". Freeman, the surname of his children, will live on no matter what happens.
Who are the Family & Friends of Gary Freeman?
Gary has an extensive community of love comprised of extended family, friends, and co-workers who all know who Gary Freeman really is. He is a father, husband and friend. He has lived an exemplary life in Canada, contributing to the community, acting as a mentor to young people and sharing his love of people, nature, history, jazz and the acquisition of knowledge. Many whose lives have been touched by this remarkable man have come together in his defence as Family and Friends of Gary Freeman.
Where is Gary Freeman?
Gary Freeman was arrested on July 27, 2004, outside the Toronto Reference Library, where he worked as a library research assistant for the previous 14 years. He has since been shuffled from one jail to another, both in Toronto (Metro West, Don Jail) and two hours north of the city at Penetanguishene. Although being behind bars is excruciating both for him and his family, he has not been idle, as he has continued his natural role as mentor to a younger generation of inmates trying to turn their lives around.
Why was Gary Freeman arrested?
Mr. Freeman is the subject of an extradition request by the United States government stemming from an incident which occurred on March 7, 1969 on the south side of Chicago with a white Chicago police officer, Terrence Knox. After almost four decades, the State of Illinois is attempting to put Freeman, aged 56, on trial to face charges of attempted murder and aggravated battery. One of Freeman's lawyers says "the question is whether the Canadian government is going to do the right thing and let this man, who has led a 35-year history here in Canada as a law-abiding citizen, an absolute pillar of the community, go on with his life or send him back to account for what amounts to civil liberties atrocities perpetrated by the United States of America in the late 1960s. Treating Pannell as a criminal and sending him back to the U.S. would make Canada complicit in those atrocities," he added.
What was Chicago like in 1969?
For many in the African-American community, Chicago, like most U.S. cities, felt like a city under armed occupation. That year, a committee was formed whose title painfully illustrated the social scene at the time: The Committee to End the Murder of Black People. The police murders of 11 young black men, so long a part of daily life that it hardly made the news, had reached such proportions that the community had to stand up and name this police practice for what it was: outright murder.
According to The Boston Review, "In the late 1960s, Chicago police led the nation in the slaying of private citizens, who were euphemistically characterized as 'fleeing felons' to mask the routine use of excessive force by police against racial minorities. The police also exploited seemingly benign offense categories, such as disorderly conduct, vagrancy, and loitering to bully minority youths and adults who had the audacity to challenge police authority."
Would Gary Freeman have received justice in 1969 Chicago?
A couple of weeks after the incident, Freeman was indicted by an all-white jury of his non-peers. Preliminary hearings established there was no probable cause to stop Mr. Freeman. Given the intense climate of fear and racism at the time, it is unlikely anyone would have listened to what Freeman said in his defence. As leading civil rights attorney William Kunstler wrote in the late 1980s, "For more than twenty years my representation of black defendants has been motivated by one of my strongest beliefs: that our society is always racist. None of our institutions, including our legal system, deliver on this country's fundamental promise that we are all created equal, especially those of us not born with white skins. …Rodney King [The L.A. motorist whose vicious beating by L.A. police was videotaped from afar] brought it home once again: No matter what the cops do, even if you have it on tape, they will not be convicted."
Why did Gary Freeman leave Chicago?
After two years in pre-trial custody, Freeman was released on bail. Freeman left Chicago because he feared for his life. He believed that he could not receive a fair trial. He was also about to become a father, and he did not want his first-born to inherit the reality, always prevalent for so many in the African-American community, that theirs is a life composed of police surveillance and harassment, unprovoked acts of violence, fear, and the daily barriers constructed by a society in which racism is as American as apple pie.
Is this prosecution or persecution?
COLD CASE FUELLED BY RACE AND POLITICS says the TORONTO STAR(February 5, 2005)
Court documents (Supplemental Record of the Case for Prosecution) present false and contradictory evidence.
Neil Cohen, a Chicago-based lawyer representing Freeman, in a Toronto Star interview, August 3, 2005, said "Physical evidence does not corroborate certain people's testimony". In fact, certain people's testimony has been presented in two completely different versions.
Neil Cohen also said the character and agenda of police officer Terrence Knox are relevant to the case.
In 1975 documents produced in a class action lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Alliance to End Repression (a coalition of churches, women's groups, civil rights organizations, and war veterans) revealed the existence of a secret Chicago Police Security program (also known as the "Red Squads") - to disrupt and destroy law-abiding political and community groups. A heretofore secret police department special order had established a "Neutralization" program to "expose, cause to cease or change in direction" "anti-social" groups. Among those groups targeted for "neutralization" was the National Lawyers Guild.
A grand jury also discovered "a close working relation" among the Security Section, the Chicago-based 113th Military Intelligence Group, and the Legion of Justice, a local right-wing para-military terrorist group.
Terrence Knox, the Chicago police officer involved in the March 7, 1969 incident, has pursued Mr. Freeman in an obsessive manner. Although Knox was the officer involved in the incident, it has been Knox, and not an independent investigator, who has feverishly pursued the investigation. Knox was named as a defendant in this historic lawsuit.
The lawsuit was brought because of the Red Squad's pervasive surveillance, harassment, and infiltration of perfectly legal social groups involved in lawful, peaceful dissent around issues such as the Vietnam War, racism, and poverty. In response to the lawsuit, Chicago police immediately infiltrated the group that was suing them. One of the "control officers" who supervised these informants and provided them with cash payments was, according to court depositions, Terrence Knox. A 1984 grand jury verdict and 1985 court decision found the Chicago Police Subversive Activites Unit had acted unlawfully, violating numerous constitutional rights by maintaining extensive dossiers on countless individuals and legal political groups, by infiltrating the group that was suing the police, and by attempting, in the words of the police themselves, to "destroy the Spanish Action Committee of Chicago, its leader and its community influence."
This class action civil suit also included as defendants: Mayor Richard Daley, Chicago Police Board, Superintendant of Police James Rochford, "Red Squad" Commander Joe Grubisic, United States Department of Justice, The Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarence Kelley (FBI Director), United States Central Intelligence Agency, Stansfield Turner (CIA Head) and various "Red Squad" members.
Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, in an August, 2005 Toronto Star interview, has urged Canada to refuse the extradition. "It is a clear sign of either over-zealous protection of police conduct or a vendetta by an individual officer to request extradition after a biblical generation against an alleged perpetrator who has long since embarked himself on a new and constructive life".
In the same interview, Ramsey Clark further stated that it's extremely important to think of the ugly state of race relations in Chicago in the late 1960s. "It was a time of fierce and excessive police violence against African-Americans - particularly those allegedly involved with the Black Panthers".
Could Gary Freeman receive a fair trial in present-day Chicago?
Although there were many changes in American society during the civil rights era, the years of Reagan, Clinton, and Bush I and Bush II have served as an attack on and rollback of those gains. A simple look at prison statistics reveals little has changed. The current U.S. rate of incarceration for African-American males is four times what it was under apartheid South Africa. Whereas white males are jailed at a rate of 649 per 100,000, black males are thrown into prison at a rate of 4,810 per 100,000 (as of June, 2002).
Amnesty International reports that "application of the death penalty in the United States is racially biased - and in some jurisdictions is reserved solely for non-white defendants," describing the U.S. justice system as "infected with racial prejudice."
Apart from the allegation of March, 1969, has Gary Freeman ever been involved in any activity which has led to allegations of violence?
None whatsoever.
Would it be safe to send Gary Freeman back to Chicago?
There are no guarantees in life, but if Mr. Freeman were to be sent back to Chicago, we have serious concerns about his personal safety. After all, upon his return to the United States, he would be placed in the custody of the Chicago Police, the same department found by the respected Human Rights Watch group to have engaged in acts of torture of suspects in custody. In their 1998 report, Shielded from Justice: Police Brutality and Accountability in the United States, the group noted "The People's Law Office, an activist firm, conducted an investigation and found and identified sixty-five suspects who were tortured by [Police Commander Jon] Burge or other officers and detectives between 1972 and 1991… A report by the police investigatory agency, the Office of Professional Standards (OPS), found that physical abuse 'did occur and that it was systemic…' The type of abuse described was not limited to the usual beating, but went into such esoteric areas as psychological techniques and planned torture. The evidence presented by some individuals convinced juries and appellate courts that personnel assigned to Area 2 engaged in methodical abuse."
The acknowledgement that police engaged in torture goes higher still, as then Republican Governor of Illinois George Ryan in 2003 pardoned numerous death row prisoners who said they had signed confessions tortured out of them by police under the direction of Police Commander Burge. CNN reported on January 14, 2003, that Burge "was fired after internal police investigators found systemic evidence of physical abuse of suspects. The four men 'were tortured,' the governor said. 'There isn't any question about that.'"
Since 1991, appellate courts have thrown out the murder confessions of at least 70 defendants in [Chicago's] Cook County - more than half because police arrested people with insufficient evidence before interrogating them. Taking people into custody without probable cause is both illegal and a precursor to many false confessions. But in Cook County, an appellate judge wrote last year, that prohibition is "routinely ignored." (from "Coercive and Illegal Tactics Torpedo Scores of Cook County Murder Cases", Chicago Tribune, December 16, 2001)
Our concern is that systemic abuse continues to occur, and that the allegations against Mr. Freeman would make him a prime target for police retaliation while in custody.
What about conditions at Cook County Jail?
After police custody, Mr. Freeman would likely be transferred to the notorious Cook County Jail, where countless human rights violations have been documented. The Chicago Tribune reported February 27, 2003, that in 1999, "an elite squad of 40 Cook County Jail guards invaded a maximum-security cellblock for the sole purpose of beating and terrorizing prisoners, then filed false reports to cover it up, according to Cook County sheriff's internal affairs documents, prisoner interviews and sheriff's sources."
What is the Extradition Act and is it a fair piece of legislation?
Dr. Gary Botting, Paetzold Fellow (LL.M., 1999; Ph.D., 2004) is the author of "Extradition Between Canada and the United States" and "Canadian Extradition Law Practice".
The following is Dr. Gary Botting's statement re: the constitutionality of the Extradition Act:
"The 1999 Extradition Act was clearly a product of the International Assistance Group of the Department of Justice which administers it. It was introduced to Parliament in 1998 without much fanfare by a parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice. Members of Parliament were told it would not only streamline extradition, it would also protect, in fact enhance, the rights of persons facing extradition. This was clearly a misrepresentation of its intention, for the person facing extradition has been stripped of virtually all meaningful rights.
Furthermore the courts no longer have a meaningful role in extradition at the initial phase, being required to accept as evidence a mere summary of the case presented by prosecuting authorities in the requesting country. Hence the superior courts which are assigned to "hear" extradition cases are required to rubber stamp the application of the attorney general to extradite any individual who is alleged to have committed an offence which might garner a maximum sentence of more than a year (section 3).
The Act has dropped the time-honoured notion that extradition should be reserved for crimes - any offence garnering such a penalty, criminal or otherwise, falls under the umbrella of the Act.
The peculiar rules of evidence demanding acceptance of the record of the case (sections 32 and 33) are in particular offensive to the integrity of Canada's judicial system and the constitution, since the role of the judiciary is undermined by the executive, and the superior court judges are reduced to the role of administrative clerks.
The Minister of Justice, who initially approves an "authority to proceed" with the extradition (section 15), is also the Attorney General, whose staff is charged with advancing the case through the courts. At the end of the proceeding, the Minister of Justice personally orders the surrender for extradition (section 40). Obviously, if the Minister has already ruled that the case should proceed, he should not also be in a position to determine that the extradition should succeed, especially given the fact that the intervening "judicial" hearing has been tied by the legislation to technicalities.
Judicial review of the Minister's decision is the first opportunity to challenge the new law, but appeal court judges consider themselves bound by whether the Minister has acted maliciously or patently unreasonably - a difficult test to meet. Therefore the only challenge to extradition that exists under the new system is constitutional challenge of the system itself. The overall scheme of the legislation is so patently unfair that eventually the Supreme Court of Canada should strike down significant parts of the Extradition Act, especially those parts dealing with evidence, and with the perceived apprehension of bias of the Minister of Justice/Attorney General in being both the prosecutor and the judge at every stage of the procedure."
Who was the victim in 1969?
Was this an incident of attempted murder or an incident of self-defence against a brutal attack following an over-zealous act of racial and political profiling?
Terrence Knox, a white Chicago police officer sustained a wound to his arm.
Joseph Pannell, a nineteen-year-old African-American, had his life destroyed. His basic human right of life and liberty was violated on the streets of Chicago in 1969.
Fear, scapegoating, and the atmosphere in the United States?
The United States is a fearful country right now. It is running around the world, trying to find easy scapegoats for all the problems it faces at home (from the inability to convince Iraqis that they should hand over their country to U.S. oil companies to skyrocketing rates of poverty and domestic misery). The U.S. is waging a war on freedom called the War on Terror, which it has used to justify the detention of some 5,000 individuals since the tragic events of September 11, 2001. Of those detentions, as David Cole points out, "Ashcroft's record is 0 for 5,000. When the Attorney General was locking these men up in the immediate wake of the attacks, he held almost daily press conferences to announce how many 'suspected terrorists' had been detained. No press conference has been forthcoming to announce that exactly none of them have turned out to be actual terrorists. "(The Nation, Oct 4, 2004)
The gap between rhetoric and reality is one which the Bush administration is constantly trying to bridge. If all these folks are such threats, why has no one been convicted? Can this war on terror be a sham? Instead, they are digging up any case they can, especially from the 1960s, to show how much law and order remain the mainstay of the land.
So draft resisters and military folks who went AWOL in 1968 are suddenly being busted in various parts of the country 35 years later.
The American establishment especially has a special hate on for the 1960s. It is either denied or made the focus of vicious re-writing. To be someone looking through the eyes of the media at the 1960s is to see a bunch of white kids wearing jeans, growing long hair, smoking dope, and either going to Woodstock or watching the first moonwalk. Wow, man.
Neglected from the sixties is the 1950s, the birth of the civil rights movement, the movements for national liberation in Vietnam, in the U.S. south and northern ghettoes. The Kerner Commission found the United States to be two nations, separate and unequal, based on a deep-seated racism made all the more intense by the white power structure's backlash against forces for change through programs such as COINTELPRO.
The Freeman case fits nicely into this paradigm of finding someone, somehow, somewhere, who fits the bill of meeting the description of America's nightmare (and saviour for the forces of law and order). In this case, it represents the much-maligned, little-understood Black Panthers, of whom Freeman was never a member, but media reports continually trumpet that he was a member of this "militant" or "extremist" group, to remind people that it may be linked to the all-pervasive Terror thing that keeps some segments of the population scared, at home, with rolls of duct tape (in much the same ways some Americans took up the advice of the Reagan administration's, who suggested that nuclear war could be survived with a shovel, a door, and some dirt. Dig a hole, crawl in, and pull a door over you piled high with dirt. It's the manure that does it, we were assured at the time).
Please end the suffering of a Canadian family!
Canada represents itself as a beacon of democracy. Its leaders speak on the world stage about the importance of certain core values, among which one of the most important is the concept of keeping families together. Indeed, both the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Canada is a signatory, say the same thing about the family: The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Please end the suffering of this Canadian family. Protect them from further suffering by freeing their loved one from jail and keeping him here in Canada where he belongs.
© 2007 Family and Friends of Gary Freeman all rights reserved
Who Is Gary Freeman And Why Should He Be Allowed To Stay In Canada?
A Canadian family is suffering. They are suffering because a dearly beloved member of their family has been snatched away from them.
Douglas Gary Freeman (Joseph Pannell) is the subject of a United States extradition request stemming from a 1969 incident. He is an innocent man. We do not believe the best interests of justice would be served by uprooting him from his family and returning him to an uncertain fate in the United States.
This fact sheet, prepared by the Family and Friends of Gary Freeman, is designed to answer, as best as we can, questions that may arise when you read or hear about this case in the news.
Who is Gary Freeman?
Douglas Gary Freeman is an African-American born in Washington, D.C. His parents named him Joseph Coleman Pannell, Jr. Heather Mallick, writing in the Saturday, September 10, 2005 issue of the Globe and Mail, cites a United Nations report indicating that blacks in Washington, D.C. live in third world conditions. History indicates that conditions for blacks in Washington, D.C. remain virtually the same from the time of Mr. Freeman's birth. Gary Freeman came to Canada to survive. It is as simple, compelling and literal as that.
He also wanted to ensure that his unborn child would have a father and a home: a place where he hoped there would not be the same fear, discrimination, and lack of equality of opportunity, as in the United States.
Gary has been married to his Canadian wife for over 25 years and they have four children, all Canadian born and college-educated. There is great significance to the chosen name of Douglas Gary Freeman. Douglas is taken from the great African-American abolitionist Frederick Douglass. Gary is taken from the city of Gary, Indiana which elected the first black mayor of a significant American city as a result of the 1965 Voting Rights Act: Richard Hatcher. Freeman, well, that is self-explanatory. Thousands of American slaves, who took the Underground Railroad to Canada, did so because Canada was a safe haven, a place where there was "freedom". Freeman, the surname of his children, will live on no matter what happens.
Who are the Family & Friends of Gary Freeman?
Gary has an extensive community of love comprised of extended family, friends, and co-workers who all know who Gary Freeman really is. He is a father, husband and friend. He has lived an exemplary life in Canada, contributing to the community, acting as a mentor to young people and sharing his love of people, nature, history, jazz and the acquisition of knowledge. Many whose lives have been touched by this remarkable man have come together in his defence as Family and Friends of Gary Freeman.
Where is Gary Freeman?
Gary Freeman was arrested on July 27, 2004, outside the Toronto Reference Library, where he worked as a library research assistant for the previous 14 years. He has since been shuffled from one jail to another, both in Toronto (Metro West, Don Jail) and two hours north of the city at Penetanguishene. Although being behind bars is excruciating both for him and his family, he has not been idle, as he has continued his natural role as mentor to a younger generation of inmates trying to turn their lives around.
Why was Gary Freeman arrested?
Mr. Freeman is the subject of an extradition request by the United States government stemming from an incident which occurred on March 7, 1969 on the south side of Chicago with a white Chicago police officer, Terrence Knox. After almost four decades, the State of Illinois is attempting to put Freeman, aged 56, on trial to face charges of attempted murder and aggravated battery. One of Freeman's lawyers says "the question is whether the Canadian government is going to do the right thing and let this man, who has led a 35-year history here in Canada as a law-abiding citizen, an absolute pillar of the community, go on with his life or send him back to account for what amounts to civil liberties atrocities perpetrated by the United States of America in the late 1960s. Treating Pannell as a criminal and sending him back to the U.S. would make Canada complicit in those atrocities," he added.
What was Chicago like in 1969?
For many in the African-American community, Chicago, like most U.S. cities, felt like a city under armed occupation. That year, a committee was formed whose title painfully illustrated the social scene at the time: The Committee to End the Murder of Black People. The police murders of 11 young black men, so long a part of daily life that it hardly made the news, had reached such proportions that the community had to stand up and name this police practice for what it was: outright murder.
According to The Boston Review, "In the late 1960s, Chicago police led the nation in the slaying of private citizens, who were euphemistically characterized as 'fleeing felons' to mask the routine use of excessive force by police against racial minorities. The police also exploited seemingly benign offense categories, such as disorderly conduct, vagrancy, and loitering to bully minority youths and adults who had the audacity to challenge police authority."
Would Gary Freeman have received justice in 1969 Chicago?
A couple of weeks after the incident, Freeman was indicted by an all-white jury of his non-peers. Preliminary hearings established there was no probable cause to stop Mr. Freeman. Given the intense climate of fear and racism at the time, it is unlikely anyone would have listened to what Freeman said in his defence. As leading civil rights attorney William Kunstler wrote in the late 1980s, "For more than twenty years my representation of black defendants has been motivated by one of my strongest beliefs: that our society is always racist. None of our institutions, including our legal system, deliver on this country's fundamental promise that we are all created equal, especially those of us not born with white skins. …Rodney King [The L.A. motorist whose vicious beating by L.A. police was videotaped from afar] brought it home once again: No matter what the cops do, even if you have it on tape, they will not be convicted."
Why did Gary Freeman leave Chicago?
After two years in pre-trial custody, Freeman was released on bail. Freeman left Chicago because he feared for his life. He believed that he could not receive a fair trial. He was also about to become a father, and he did not want his first-born to inherit the reality, always prevalent for so many in the African-American community, that theirs is a life composed of police surveillance and harassment, unprovoked acts of violence, fear, and the daily barriers constructed by a society in which racism is as American as apple pie.
Is this prosecution or persecution?
COLD CASE FUELLED BY RACE AND POLITICS says the TORONTO STAR(February 5, 2005)
Court documents (Supplemental Record of the Case for Prosecution) present false and contradictory evidence.
Neil Cohen, a Chicago-based lawyer representing Freeman, in a Toronto Star interview, August 3, 2005, said "Physical evidence does not corroborate certain people's testimony". In fact, certain people's testimony has been presented in two completely different versions.
Neil Cohen also said the character and agenda of police officer Terrence Knox are relevant to the case.
In 1975 documents produced in a class action lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Alliance to End Repression (a coalition of churches, women's groups, civil rights organizations, and war veterans) revealed the existence of a secret Chicago Police Security program (also known as the "Red Squads") - to disrupt and destroy law-abiding political and community groups. A heretofore secret police department special order had established a "Neutralization" program to "expose, cause to cease or change in direction" "anti-social" groups. Among those groups targeted for "neutralization" was the National Lawyers Guild.
A grand jury also discovered "a close working relation" among the Security Section, the Chicago-based 113th Military Intelligence Group, and the Legion of Justice, a local right-wing para-military terrorist group.
Terrence Knox, the Chicago police officer involved in the March 7, 1969 incident, has pursued Mr. Freeman in an obsessive manner. Although Knox was the officer involved in the incident, it has been Knox, and not an independent investigator, who has feverishly pursued the investigation. Knox was named as a defendant in this historic lawsuit.
The lawsuit was brought because of the Red Squad's pervasive surveillance, harassment, and infiltration of perfectly legal social groups involved in lawful, peaceful dissent around issues such as the Vietnam War, racism, and poverty. In response to the lawsuit, Chicago police immediately infiltrated the group that was suing them. One of the "control officers" who supervised these informants and provided them with cash payments was, according to court depositions, Terrence Knox. A 1984 grand jury verdict and 1985 court decision found the Chicago Police Subversive Activites Unit had acted unlawfully, violating numerous constitutional rights by maintaining extensive dossiers on countless individuals and legal political groups, by infiltrating the group that was suing the police, and by attempting, in the words of the police themselves, to "destroy the Spanish Action Committee of Chicago, its leader and its community influence."
This class action civil suit also included as defendants: Mayor Richard Daley, Chicago Police Board, Superintendant of Police James Rochford, "Red Squad" Commander Joe Grubisic, United States Department of Justice, The Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarence Kelley (FBI Director), United States Central Intelligence Agency, Stansfield Turner (CIA Head) and various "Red Squad" members.
Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, in an August, 2005 Toronto Star interview, has urged Canada to refuse the extradition. "It is a clear sign of either over-zealous protection of police conduct or a vendetta by an individual officer to request extradition after a biblical generation against an alleged perpetrator who has long since embarked himself on a new and constructive life".
In the same interview, Ramsey Clark further stated that it's extremely important to think of the ugly state of race relations in Chicago in the late 1960s. "It was a time of fierce and excessive police violence against African-Americans - particularly those allegedly involved with the Black Panthers".
Could Gary Freeman receive a fair trial in present-day Chicago?
Although there were many changes in American society during the civil rights era, the years of Reagan, Clinton, and Bush I and Bush II have served as an attack on and rollback of those gains. A simple look at prison statistics reveals little has changed. The current U.S. rate of incarceration for African-American males is four times what it was under apartheid South Africa. Whereas white males are jailed at a rate of 649 per 100,000, black males are thrown into prison at a rate of 4,810 per 100,000 (as of June, 2002).
Amnesty International reports that "application of the death penalty in the United States is racially biased - and in some jurisdictions is reserved solely for non-white defendants," describing the U.S. justice system as "infected with racial prejudice."
Apart from the allegation of March, 1969, has Gary Freeman ever been involved in any activity which has led to allegations of violence?
None whatsoever.
Would it be safe to send Gary Freeman back to Chicago?
There are no guarantees in life, but if Mr. Freeman were to be sent back to Chicago, we have serious concerns about his personal safety. After all, upon his return to the United States, he would be placed in the custody of the Chicago Police, the same department found by the respected Human Rights Watch group to have engaged in acts of torture of suspects in custody. In their 1998 report, Shielded from Justice: Police Brutality and Accountability in the United States, the group noted "The People's Law Office, an activist firm, conducted an investigation and found and identified sixty-five suspects who were tortured by [Police Commander Jon] Burge or other officers and detectives between 1972 and 1991… A report by the police investigatory agency, the Office of Professional Standards (OPS), found that physical abuse 'did occur and that it was systemic…' The type of abuse described was not limited to the usual beating, but went into such esoteric areas as psychological techniques and planned torture. The evidence presented by some individuals convinced juries and appellate courts that personnel assigned to Area 2 engaged in methodical abuse."
The acknowledgement that police engaged in torture goes higher still, as then Republican Governor of Illinois George Ryan in 2003 pardoned numerous death row prisoners who said they had signed confessions tortured out of them by police under the direction of Police Commander Burge. CNN reported on January 14, 2003, that Burge "was fired after internal police investigators found systemic evidence of physical abuse of suspects. The four men 'were tortured,' the governor said. 'There isn't any question about that.'"
Since 1991, appellate courts have thrown out the murder confessions of at least 70 defendants in [Chicago's] Cook County - more than half because police arrested people with insufficient evidence before interrogating them. Taking people into custody without probable cause is both illegal and a precursor to many false confessions. But in Cook County, an appellate judge wrote last year, that prohibition is "routinely ignored." (from "Coercive and Illegal Tactics Torpedo Scores of Cook County Murder Cases", Chicago Tribune, December 16, 2001)
Our concern is that systemic abuse continues to occur, and that the allegations against Mr. Freeman would make him a prime target for police retaliation while in custody.
What about conditions at Cook County Jail?
After police custody, Mr. Freeman would likely be transferred to the notorious Cook County Jail, where countless human rights violations have been documented. The Chicago Tribune reported February 27, 2003, that in 1999, "an elite squad of 40 Cook County Jail guards invaded a maximum-security cellblock for the sole purpose of beating and terrorizing prisoners, then filed false reports to cover it up, according to Cook County sheriff's internal affairs documents, prisoner interviews and sheriff's sources."
What is the Extradition Act and is it a fair piece of legislation?
Dr. Gary Botting, Paetzold Fellow (LL.M., 1999; Ph.D., 2004) is the author of "Extradition Between Canada and the United States" and "Canadian Extradition Law Practice".
The following is Dr. Gary Botting's statement re: the constitutionality of the Extradition Act:
"The 1999 Extradition Act was clearly a product of the International Assistance Group of the Department of Justice which administers it. It was introduced to Parliament in 1998 without much fanfare by a parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice. Members of Parliament were told it would not only streamline extradition, it would also protect, in fact enhance, the rights of persons facing extradition. This was clearly a misrepresentation of its intention, for the person facing extradition has been stripped of virtually all meaningful rights.
Furthermore the courts no longer have a meaningful role in extradition at the initial phase, being required to accept as evidence a mere summary of the case presented by prosecuting authorities in the requesting country. Hence the superior courts which are assigned to "hear" extradition cases are required to rubber stamp the application of the attorney general to extradite any individual who is alleged to have committed an offence which might garner a maximum sentence of more than a year (section 3).
The Act has dropped the time-honoured notion that extradition should be reserved for crimes - any offence garnering such a penalty, criminal or otherwise, falls under the umbrella of the Act.
The peculiar rules of evidence demanding acceptance of the record of the case (sections 32 and 33) are in particular offensive to the integrity of Canada's judicial system and the constitution, since the role of the judiciary is undermined by the executive, and the superior court judges are reduced to the role of administrative clerks.
The Minister of Justice, who initially approves an "authority to proceed" with the extradition (section 15), is also the Attorney General, whose staff is charged with advancing the case through the courts. At the end of the proceeding, the Minister of Justice personally orders the surrender for extradition (section 40). Obviously, if the Minister has already ruled that the case should proceed, he should not also be in a position to determine that the extradition should succeed, especially given the fact that the intervening "judicial" hearing has been tied by the legislation to technicalities.
Judicial review of the Minister's decision is the first opportunity to challenge the new law, but appeal court judges consider themselves bound by whether the Minister has acted maliciously or patently unreasonably - a difficult test to meet. Therefore the only challenge to extradition that exists under the new system is constitutional challenge of the system itself. The overall scheme of the legislation is so patently unfair that eventually the Supreme Court of Canada should strike down significant parts of the Extradition Act, especially those parts dealing with evidence, and with the perceived apprehension of bias of the Minister of Justice/Attorney General in being both the prosecutor and the judge at every stage of the procedure."
Who was the victim in 1969?
Was this an incident of attempted murder or an incident of self-defence against a brutal attack following an over-zealous act of racial and political profiling?
Terrence Knox, a white Chicago police officer sustained a wound to his arm.
Joseph Pannell, a nineteen-year-old African-American, had his life destroyed. His basic human right of life and liberty was violated on the streets of Chicago in 1969.
Fear, scapegoating, and the atmosphere in the United States?
The United States is a fearful country right now. It is running around the world, trying to find easy scapegoats for all the problems it faces at home (from the inability to convince Iraqis that they should hand over their country to U.S. oil companies to skyrocketing rates of poverty and domestic misery). The U.S. is waging a war on freedom called the War on Terror, which it has used to justify the detention of some 5,000 individuals since the tragic events of September 11, 2001. Of those detentions, as David Cole points out, "Ashcroft's record is 0 for 5,000. When the Attorney General was locking these men up in the immediate wake of the attacks, he held almost daily press conferences to announce how many 'suspected terrorists' had been detained. No press conference has been forthcoming to announce that exactly none of them have turned out to be actual terrorists. "(The Nation, Oct 4, 2004)
The gap between rhetoric and reality is one which the Bush administration is constantly trying to bridge. If all these folks are such threats, why has no one been convicted? Can this war on terror be a sham? Instead, they are digging up any case they can, especially from the 1960s, to show how much law and order remain the mainstay of the land.
So draft resisters and military folks who went AWOL in 1968 are suddenly being busted in various parts of the country 35 years later.
The American establishment especially has a special hate on for the 1960s. It is either denied or made the focus of vicious re-writing. To be someone looking through the eyes of the media at the 1960s is to see a bunch of white kids wearing jeans, growing long hair, smoking dope, and either going to Woodstock or watching the first moonwalk. Wow, man.
Neglected from the sixties is the 1950s, the birth of the civil rights movement, the movements for national liberation in Vietnam, in the U.S. south and northern ghettoes. The Kerner Commission found the United States to be two nations, separate and unequal, based on a deep-seated racism made all the more intense by the white power structure's backlash against forces for change through programs such as COINTELPRO.
The Freeman case fits nicely into this paradigm of finding someone, somehow, somewhere, who fits the bill of meeting the description of America's nightmare (and saviour for the forces of law and order). In this case, it represents the much-maligned, little-understood Black Panthers, of whom Freeman was never a member, but media reports continually trumpet that he was a member of this "militant" or "extremist" group, to remind people that it may be linked to the all-pervasive Terror thing that keeps some segments of the population scared, at home, with rolls of duct tape (in much the same ways some Americans took up the advice of the Reagan administration's, who suggested that nuclear war could be survived with a shovel, a door, and some dirt. Dig a hole, crawl in, and pull a door over you piled high with dirt. It's the manure that does it, we were assured at the time).
Please end the suffering of a Canadian family!
Canada represents itself as a beacon of democracy. Its leaders speak on the world stage about the importance of certain core values, among which one of the most important is the concept of keeping families together. Indeed, both the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Canada is a signatory, say the same thing about the family: The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Please end the suffering of this Canadian family. Protect them from further suffering by freeing their loved one from jail and keeping him here in Canada where he belongs.
© 2007 Family and Friends of Gary Freeman all rights reserved
Sunday, February 25, 2007
In the New York City taxi world virtue is usually its own reward.
I've been wanting to comment on this story for a while and it's late, but better late than never. It's the story about the New York Cabbie who had been stiffed by this passenger (given a small tip more insulting than no tip at all), discovered that she had left 31 diamond rings in the trunk of his cab, went on to spend over four hours trying to get the rings back to her and for his troubles, got a check for one hundred dollars (the lady is no doubt going to declare the expense on her tax return.)
A taxi driver pays rent by the hour for his taxi, whether he picks up fares or not. This hundred dollars then was a "reward" that did not even cover the driver's losses incurred while searching for this absent minded diamond dealing cheapskate from Dallas, whose name ought to be public but is not.
I've often thought to myself that in the world of the taxi driver virtue is its own reward. I see it every day in things that may seem little but are not.
I'm stopped at a red light. There is a potential passenger signalling that he wants a taxi. Another taxi is to my right. The driver jumps the red light, cuts me off and the passenger gets into his cab. This driver no doubt does this often, has one or two red light tickets, not enough to lose his license, and he makes quite a bit more than I do. I could work the same way he works. Why don't I?
I am no goody two shoes but I believe that in order to have a functioning traffic system we have to respect red lights, certainly lights that are solidly red when we get to the intersection. If both of us were to try to jump the light toether we might very well collide and even hurt the passenger and other pedestrians nearby.
A woman gets out of a taxi that is in front of me and gets into my taxi. The other driver speeds off. She is going to the corner of Hell and Forgotten. It is going to take me almost an hour to go from this wonderful corner to a place where I can hope to find a paying fare. She gives me a twenty-cent tip and pauses to hear me thank her.
It goes like that. Virtue is its own reward. Just ask cab driver Osman Chowdhury.
A taxi driver pays rent by the hour for his taxi, whether he picks up fares or not. This hundred dollars then was a "reward" that did not even cover the driver's losses incurred while searching for this absent minded diamond dealing cheapskate from Dallas, whose name ought to be public but is not.
I've often thought to myself that in the world of the taxi driver virtue is its own reward. I see it every day in things that may seem little but are not.
I'm stopped at a red light. There is a potential passenger signalling that he wants a taxi. Another taxi is to my right. The driver jumps the red light, cuts me off and the passenger gets into his cab. This driver no doubt does this often, has one or two red light tickets, not enough to lose his license, and he makes quite a bit more than I do. I could work the same way he works. Why don't I?
I am no goody two shoes but I believe that in order to have a functioning traffic system we have to respect red lights, certainly lights that are solidly red when we get to the intersection. If both of us were to try to jump the light toether we might very well collide and even hurt the passenger and other pedestrians nearby.
A woman gets out of a taxi that is in front of me and gets into my taxi. The other driver speeds off. She is going to the corner of Hell and Forgotten. It is going to take me almost an hour to go from this wonderful corner to a place where I can hope to find a paying fare. She gives me a twenty-cent tip and pauses to hear me thank her.
It goes like that. Virtue is its own reward. Just ask cab driver Osman Chowdhury.
USA Today column sees the Palestinian side.
Monday, February 19, 2007
A Blunt Question- Did Manuel Garcia and Counterpunch Editors Twist Some Joints?
Interesting question.
http://911review.com/articles/ryan/garcia.html
Manuel Garcia Sees Physics That Don't Exist
by KEVIN RYAN
December 27, 2006
Another Opportunity to Understand Our Predicament
Over the years we've heard from a few educated people who claim to understand and support the latest story given by the US government for the unprecedented destruction of the WTC buildings. Unfortunately, those folks usually turn out to either work for the Bush Administration directly, like FEMA and NIST, or are in some other way profiting from the War on Terror. Some people accept what these Bush scientists say because they have PhDs in scientific fields, or because certain media sources promote the official myths. In a way, the curious behavior of these scientists and media sources allows us to better see the predicament we all face.
With the case of Manuel Garcia, and his three recent, rapid-fire articles in Counterpunch, we appear to have another opportunity to examine the phenomenon of Bush science. Here we see a fully educated scientist making strong supportive statements of the Bush Administration's 9/11 theories, despite the fact that he must know those theories are based on false or unsubstantiated claims. For our own understanding, let's take a closer look at Manuel Garcia and his efforts.
Garcia not only works for the government, he works for a very interesting organization in terms of the best hypothesis for what happened that day. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Garcia's employer, appears to be where explosive thermite was invented, and it continues to be a focus of research there. (1) At LLNL, government scientists have learned how to combine the exothermic power of the thermite reaction with organic moieties to produce a thermite reaction that can do pressure/volume work (i.e. turn massive quantities of concrete and other building materials into dust). From the research of Steven Jones, we know that the thermite reaction likely played a role in bringing the towers down, and it would not be surprising if technology developed by LLNL was involved. Could that be why Manuel Garcia is so intent on seeing Physics that don't exist, in order to avoid seeing links to technology developed by his employer?
There may be more to it than that. Notice that there are many aspects about the official story of 9/11/01 that strain credulity, to say the least, but none more so than the "collapse" of the WTC buildings. As with the air defense failures, we've been given several contradictory stories about these events over the years, none of which have panned out. The first was an urban legend that grew, as a result of the long delays in official commitment, from media reports of extreme temperatures and melting steel. We were given other stories for the destruction of these buildings, but the Pancake Theory, which was the primary explanation offered by FEMA and was the central explanation in numerous media stories, lasted for a period of more than three years. The Pancake Theory recently died a quiet death with the FAQ responses offered by NIST, but as with the urban legend media stories, we have been offered no apologies from those who propped-up the ongoing 9/11 Wars with these false claims.
So when a US weapons scientist, like Manuel Garcia, offers more wild speculation in support of the Bush Administrations' ever-changing stories, we must first recognize that this is not really about serious researchers quibbling over minor details of physical evidence. We must realize that Garcia and his ilk have already given us several false stories for the destruction of these buildings, and those lies have resulted not only in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, but have also supported the systematic conversion of America into a totalitarian state waiting to happen. What will become of those Bush scientists if honest people ever achieve the awareness and political will to call for a real investigation?i
Quantum Behavior
In his "Physics of 9/11", Garcia offered his new "twisted joints" theory, adding more conjecture to the miasma that NIST spent three years crafting. Garcia may have twisted a few joints himself before writing these articles, but it is clear that he did not put much time into reviewing NIST's WTC report before putting his reputation, and perhaps much more, on the line to defend it. NIST did not actually describe the all-important forces that supposedly pulled in the tower's external columns. In their computer model, these forces were phantom forces, applied to the external columns by sagging floors that had, paradoxically, been disconnected from those columns. Garcia's talk of twisting joints is, therefore, only imaginative conjecture at best.
Garcia seems to admit his own sloppy dishonesty by claiming that high temperatures in the impact zone were sufficient to soften the steel, and that floors in the impact zone sagged. One only has to read the summary of the NIST report to know that the impact zones were far from where NIST says the buildings failed. However, there could be another explanation for this "spooky action at a distance." Garcia may have stumbled upon a new demonstration of the principle of Physics known as non-locality, one in which steel heated in one place causes steel located in another, far away place to soften and fail. That would be amazing if true.
The greater part of this first article is simply wild speculation, a crime in itself at this point. Although NIST admits that many scientists, given millions of dollars and several years to work on it, could not describe the dynamics of collapse for the towers, Garcia makes a one-man job of it in order to put those silly conspiracy theorists in their place. He offers equations and terms like "wave trains" to ensure that those of us who need to "expand [our] range of rationality and hence [our] political maturity" can do so, if only we can follow his superior thought processes. In Garcia's dreamlike world of superiority, strange things happen. Floors vanish and buildings begin crashing to the ground, as a result of fire-softened steel, at an initial speed of 16 mph. That is, there is no zero point at which such a building begins to drop. These skyscrapers actually exhibit quantum behavior, as large multi-floor sections go from rest to a speed of 16 mph instantaneously! Garcia appears humble when describing this monumental discovery, telling us little about the "rippling wavelets" that make it so. He finally sums up his findings by simply stating that "The towers shattered, and the pieces fell to the ground." Perhaps someone should call the Nobel committee.
The Energy Crisis Solved
Garcia's second article, "The Thermodynamics of 9/11", does not improve upon the first. Here he repeats his ridiculous claim of the importance of high temperatures in the impact zone (far from the failure zone), and then states that the "fatal element in the WTC Towers story is that enough of the thermal insulation was banged off the steel frames by the airplane jolts…". Of course, those of us who have actually followed NIST's investigation know that they could not produce any "robust criteria" to establish that fireproofing was lost through forces of vibration. Instead, NIST performed a shotgun test to see if the fireproofing could have been lost through shearing forces.
The shotgun test not only failed to support NIST's pre-determined conclusions, as was the case for all of their other physical tests, but it actually proved that the fireproofing could not have been sheared off because too much energy would be needed. This did not deter NIST, as they simply proceeded by filling their computer model with vague, sweeping assumptions like suggesting that the fireproofing was completely removed wherever the office furnishings were damaged (i.e. if a cube wall fell or a pencil was broken, thousands of square meters of fireproofing must have been sheared off too). (2) If it was not already clear that Garcia never read NIST's WTC report, we might think that he got his quantum leaps from them.
Garcia's analysis of the WTC thermodynamics then begins with the removal of all of the fireproofing from all the steel, an unsupported assumption at best. In any case, to consider temperature increases, an honest scientist would take the materials and the energy sources involved, and perform some straightforward calculations to evaluate the available energies. In the case of the WTC towers, we know from FEMA and NIST that about 4,500 gallons of jet fuel were available to feed the fires on the impact and failure floors, giving an energy value of approximately 600 GJ, considering moderate combustion. And we know the buildings had a fire load of 20 Kg/m^2, which would provide an energy value of about 500 GJ for the furnishings on several floors in the vicinity of the failure zones. (3) These realistic values give a total energy of about 1,100 GJ that would be available to heat one building, but Garcia uses 8,000 GJ and 3,000 GJ, values NIST created through their deceptive, pretzel-logic manipulations.
Maybe this incredible energy yield means that Garcia and NIST have solved the energy crisis, and we can end the 9/11 Wars and bring our troops home. If not, maybe Garcia can help us understand where all that additional energy came from, instead of just spouting off with so much arrogance. We really would appreciate it.
In the absence of this explanation, Garcia proceeds to apply this tremendous amount of mysterious energy to the heating of the materials involved. But instead of taking the quantities of steel, concrete, and other materials into account (don't forget the aircraft itself) Garcia helps us to "expand our range of rationality" by dumbing-down the scenario using a "fictitious homogenized" substance called "ironcrete". Garcia muddies the water with his ironcrete because, although he doesn't give the calculations, this allows him to use a sleight of hand, giving a value for specific heat that is less than that of any of the starting materials. Few would notice, but this means that, in support of Garcia's purposes, it takes less heat to increase the temperature of each kilogram of ironcrete than it would to increase the temperature of the steel and concrete used in the WTC towers. Since he's using eight times more energy than could have been available anyway, this minor scam doesn't seem worth the effort.
But note that Garcia also suggests all the available heat became trapped in his ironcrete, thereby assuming that no hot gases left the impact zone, that no heat escaped by conduction, and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat. He also conveniently ignores all the other materials in the aircraft and the buildings, including the Aluminum, all the office furnishings, and the vast amount of air and water vapor, all of which would be heated too, absorbing energy. Considering his quantum mechanical collapse dynamics and magical fireproofing loss, these distributions of heat energy may not seem so strange, that is until Garcia needs that energy back to support his later claims of melting Aluminum, plastic "cracking" to create dense pockets of hydrocarbon vapors that mimic high-explosives, and even a replay of the beginnings of life on earth (no kidding).
The Dark Matter of Intelligent Fuel
By the time we get to Garcia's third article, we're either believing this guy is the greatest scientist in history, or we're understanding that his series in Counterpunch may be something more of a sucker punch. In this third article, "Dark Fire", Garcia claims to have single-handedly solved the problem that baffled FEMA and NIST, as well as all objective people around the world -- the collapse of WTC 7.
Now if Garcia had proven the quantum behavior of large objects, and had developed a method for extracting eight times the normal amount of energy from a gallon of hydrocarbon fuel, as his previous articles suggest, we might be intrigued. Maybe the title of this third article is a reference to the combustion of the elusive dark matter that Physicists have long sought after. Let's take a look.
The challenge of explaining the collapse of WTC 7 was described by Jim Hoffman with the following three points.
* This steel-framed skyscraper collapsed into its footprint with all the characteristics of a standard controlled demolition. * No other steel-framed building that collapsed for any reason has ever shown any of those features -- let alone all those features. * No other tall steel-framed building has ever collapsed from fires -- the primary cause of WTC 7's collapse according to the official story.
Additionally, we know that FEMA spent eight months of exhaustive work on the investigation, finally claiming that "The performance of WTC 7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers." They then added that their "best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence." NIST has spent several years trying to come up with a legitimate, non-explosive explanation, so far without success. But our hero Garcia takes FEMA's low probability scenario, embellishes it a bit, and boldly declares "This is what happened", leaving no room for doubt.
The initiating event of Garcia's low probability theory is a "hot volley" of "incandescent metal and heated stone" that destroyed a fuel oil distribution pipe in the southwest corner of WTC 7. Where the stone came from we'll never know (maybe it was an asteroid), but the probability that the temperature of the steel from the towers, which NIST measured at 250 C, could cause that steel to glow in incandescence, is essentially nil.
FEMA pointed out a string of improbable events that would need to come together for the rest of this story to pan out, but they made clear that the biggest problem was that WTC 7 first began to collapse on the east side, far from the distribution pipe that Garcia builds his story on. This means that the fuel oil released from any such breakage would need to exhibit the features of an intelligent migration, pumping up from multiple tanks on the ground floor, through the damaged pipe in the southwest corner of the building, traversing a distance of 250 feet across the fifth floor without any spreading or transfer loss, to pool very selectively beneath truss #2 in a mechanical room on the east side of the building.
This theory depends on much more creative guesswork, including the following.
* None of this intelligently migrating fuel oil found its way to the containment vessel that was designed for such an event, and therefore never triggered the safety mechanism that would automatically de-energize the pumps.
* The authorities that decided not to fight the fires in WTC 7 also decided not to cut the power to these pumps, allowing them to spray oil within this burning skyscraper, for up to seven hours, in the middle of Manhattan.
* The pooled fuel oil was somehow heated to a sufficient temperature for ignition, at which point an unknown ignition source initiated an efficient, multi-hour burn.
* Although now situated in an enclosed room with limited space, the oil found limitless Oxygen in order to extract every bit of energy from the assumed maximum amount of 12,000 gallons.
* The fires generated by this burning fuel oil centered in a highly specific formation directly beneath that critical truss, and the heat produced was perfectly contained and directed at the truss itself but nowhere else.
* This truss-specific fire raged for up to seven hours but was never visible from any external view.
* This miraculous fire then caused the failure of that one critical truss, which somehow initiated the total collapse of this 47 story building in just 6.6 seconds.
Garcia's "Dark Fire" piece might as well have been about the combustion of that elusive dark matter, because even if we really wanted to believe his extended string of astounding events, he doesn't address the primary problems of the collapse dynamics. Instead, he simply states "a progressive collapse propagates up and material falls freely." And as with the work of NIST, we're expected to believe that just saying so makes it true.
Begging Off and Catching On
When questioned more closely about his speculative articles, Garcia claimed in an email that he was done talking and writing about these issues, and that folks would need to rely on the authoritative information provided by Frank Greening and Popular Mechanics. In this plea, Garcia says that Greening's results jibe with his, although he was unaware of Greening before he wrote his series. It is clear from his "thermodynamics" piece that Garcia might subscribe to Greening's "Fruit Crumble" theory, where ultra-fine Aluminum and Iron Oxide spontaneously form in the buildings to produce "natural thermite", distributed in just the right forms and places. It could be that Garcia would buy Greening's "They Just Forgot to Use the Bolts" theory as well, if it comes to that. (4)
Government scientists get paid to support government policies, particularly in this era of "Bush Science", and clearly Garcia is willing to play along. But why would political news organizations, like Counterpunch, that present themselves as alternatives to the corporate media, promote these false claims?
Consider for a moment the implications of a breakthrough in the truth about 9/11. If the official story about 9/11 is completely false, as it has proven to be, that fact should call into question those media sources who have helped to cover-up the details over the last five years, even if only through gross negligence of the facts. Whether or not collusion with alternative media was involved, if there is a possibility that the neo-cons actually helped in planning or executing the attacks, then the fact that they pulled it off means that Alexander Cockburn and other (ostensibly) liberal leaders might no longer enjoy the "irreverent and biting" superiority that they identify themselves with. It could be very distressing for some of these rebel leaders to realize that instead of "muckraking with a radical attitude" they have spent years meekly bolstering the status quo.
It appears that these kinds of realizations are inevitable, and actually offer us a chance to improve our situation. In the US, we'll soon have more opportunity to notice the default states in which we are expected to accept scientific authority no matter how illogical, and accept a cartoonish political framework no matter how impotent. In the next few months, these opportunities will come like "hot volleys" from Manuel Garcia, providing stark examples of how pretentious "experts", and other types of fictitious, homogenized (ironcrete) leaders give no real alternatives to the problems we've seen in the last five years.
If our new Democratic Congress will not call for impeachment or a new 9/11 investigation, will they at least repeal the Military Commissions Act, or the Patriot Act? Will they stop construction of Halliburton's secretive "detention centers" or put an end to the illegal 9/11 Wars? Will our government's efforts to protect us from unexplained terrorism ever stop looking exactly like the efforts they would take to protect themselves from us? In other words, will these new leaders, in practice, be any different than the neo-cons? Over the next few months we will realize the answers to these questions, and perhaps then we can begin taking more responsibility for the deception in our lives.
References:
1. There are numerous articles available from LLNL on thermite research. For an example of explosive thermite, see try this one. http://www.llnl.gov/tid/lof/documents/pdf/307362.pdf2. Therese McAllister explains NIST's vague, sweeping assumption of fireproofing loss in her presentation here. http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session6/6McAllister.pdf3. For effective energy flow from one kg of office furnishings, use estimate of 8.4 MJ/kg (a value for wood -- probably a little higher than for the materials involved). See Sfintesco, editor, Fire Safety in Tall Buildings, McGraw Hill, 19924. Gordon Ross explains some of Greening's desperate sounding theories here. http://www.911blogger.com/node/4867
http://911review.com/articles/ryan/garcia.html
Manuel Garcia Sees Physics That Don't Exist
by KEVIN RYAN
December 27, 2006
Another Opportunity to Understand Our Predicament
Over the years we've heard from a few educated people who claim to understand and support the latest story given by the US government for the unprecedented destruction of the WTC buildings. Unfortunately, those folks usually turn out to either work for the Bush Administration directly, like FEMA and NIST, or are in some other way profiting from the War on Terror. Some people accept what these Bush scientists say because they have PhDs in scientific fields, or because certain media sources promote the official myths. In a way, the curious behavior of these scientists and media sources allows us to better see the predicament we all face.
With the case of Manuel Garcia, and his three recent, rapid-fire articles in Counterpunch, we appear to have another opportunity to examine the phenomenon of Bush science. Here we see a fully educated scientist making strong supportive statements of the Bush Administration's 9/11 theories, despite the fact that he must know those theories are based on false or unsubstantiated claims. For our own understanding, let's take a closer look at Manuel Garcia and his efforts.
Garcia not only works for the government, he works for a very interesting organization in terms of the best hypothesis for what happened that day. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Garcia's employer, appears to be where explosive thermite was invented, and it continues to be a focus of research there. (1) At LLNL, government scientists have learned how to combine the exothermic power of the thermite reaction with organic moieties to produce a thermite reaction that can do pressure/volume work (i.e. turn massive quantities of concrete and other building materials into dust). From the research of Steven Jones, we know that the thermite reaction likely played a role in bringing the towers down, and it would not be surprising if technology developed by LLNL was involved. Could that be why Manuel Garcia is so intent on seeing Physics that don't exist, in order to avoid seeing links to technology developed by his employer?
There may be more to it than that. Notice that there are many aspects about the official story of 9/11/01 that strain credulity, to say the least, but none more so than the "collapse" of the WTC buildings. As with the air defense failures, we've been given several contradictory stories about these events over the years, none of which have panned out. The first was an urban legend that grew, as a result of the long delays in official commitment, from media reports of extreme temperatures and melting steel. We were given other stories for the destruction of these buildings, but the Pancake Theory, which was the primary explanation offered by FEMA and was the central explanation in numerous media stories, lasted for a period of more than three years. The Pancake Theory recently died a quiet death with the FAQ responses offered by NIST, but as with the urban legend media stories, we have been offered no apologies from those who propped-up the ongoing 9/11 Wars with these false claims.
So when a US weapons scientist, like Manuel Garcia, offers more wild speculation in support of the Bush Administrations' ever-changing stories, we must first recognize that this is not really about serious researchers quibbling over minor details of physical evidence. We must realize that Garcia and his ilk have already given us several false stories for the destruction of these buildings, and those lies have resulted not only in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, but have also supported the systematic conversion of America into a totalitarian state waiting to happen. What will become of those Bush scientists if honest people ever achieve the awareness and political will to call for a real investigation?i
Quantum Behavior
In his "Physics of 9/11", Garcia offered his new "twisted joints" theory, adding more conjecture to the miasma that NIST spent three years crafting. Garcia may have twisted a few joints himself before writing these articles, but it is clear that he did not put much time into reviewing NIST's WTC report before putting his reputation, and perhaps much more, on the line to defend it. NIST did not actually describe the all-important forces that supposedly pulled in the tower's external columns. In their computer model, these forces were phantom forces, applied to the external columns by sagging floors that had, paradoxically, been disconnected from those columns. Garcia's talk of twisting joints is, therefore, only imaginative conjecture at best.
Garcia seems to admit his own sloppy dishonesty by claiming that high temperatures in the impact zone were sufficient to soften the steel, and that floors in the impact zone sagged. One only has to read the summary of the NIST report to know that the impact zones were far from where NIST says the buildings failed. However, there could be another explanation for this "spooky action at a distance." Garcia may have stumbled upon a new demonstration of the principle of Physics known as non-locality, one in which steel heated in one place causes steel located in another, far away place to soften and fail. That would be amazing if true.
The greater part of this first article is simply wild speculation, a crime in itself at this point. Although NIST admits that many scientists, given millions of dollars and several years to work on it, could not describe the dynamics of collapse for the towers, Garcia makes a one-man job of it in order to put those silly conspiracy theorists in their place. He offers equations and terms like "wave trains" to ensure that those of us who need to "expand [our] range of rationality and hence [our] political maturity" can do so, if only we can follow his superior thought processes. In Garcia's dreamlike world of superiority, strange things happen. Floors vanish and buildings begin crashing to the ground, as a result of fire-softened steel, at an initial speed of 16 mph. That is, there is no zero point at which such a building begins to drop. These skyscrapers actually exhibit quantum behavior, as large multi-floor sections go from rest to a speed of 16 mph instantaneously! Garcia appears humble when describing this monumental discovery, telling us little about the "rippling wavelets" that make it so. He finally sums up his findings by simply stating that "The towers shattered, and the pieces fell to the ground." Perhaps someone should call the Nobel committee.
The Energy Crisis Solved
Garcia's second article, "The Thermodynamics of 9/11", does not improve upon the first. Here he repeats his ridiculous claim of the importance of high temperatures in the impact zone (far from the failure zone), and then states that the "fatal element in the WTC Towers story is that enough of the thermal insulation was banged off the steel frames by the airplane jolts…". Of course, those of us who have actually followed NIST's investigation know that they could not produce any "robust criteria" to establish that fireproofing was lost through forces of vibration. Instead, NIST performed a shotgun test to see if the fireproofing could have been lost through shearing forces.
The shotgun test not only failed to support NIST's pre-determined conclusions, as was the case for all of their other physical tests, but it actually proved that the fireproofing could not have been sheared off because too much energy would be needed. This did not deter NIST, as they simply proceeded by filling their computer model with vague, sweeping assumptions like suggesting that the fireproofing was completely removed wherever the office furnishings were damaged (i.e. if a cube wall fell or a pencil was broken, thousands of square meters of fireproofing must have been sheared off too). (2) If it was not already clear that Garcia never read NIST's WTC report, we might think that he got his quantum leaps from them.
Garcia's analysis of the WTC thermodynamics then begins with the removal of all of the fireproofing from all the steel, an unsupported assumption at best. In any case, to consider temperature increases, an honest scientist would take the materials and the energy sources involved, and perform some straightforward calculations to evaluate the available energies. In the case of the WTC towers, we know from FEMA and NIST that about 4,500 gallons of jet fuel were available to feed the fires on the impact and failure floors, giving an energy value of approximately 600 GJ, considering moderate combustion. And we know the buildings had a fire load of 20 Kg/m^2, which would provide an energy value of about 500 GJ for the furnishings on several floors in the vicinity of the failure zones. (3) These realistic values give a total energy of about 1,100 GJ that would be available to heat one building, but Garcia uses 8,000 GJ and 3,000 GJ, values NIST created through their deceptive, pretzel-logic manipulations.
Maybe this incredible energy yield means that Garcia and NIST have solved the energy crisis, and we can end the 9/11 Wars and bring our troops home. If not, maybe Garcia can help us understand where all that additional energy came from, instead of just spouting off with so much arrogance. We really would appreciate it.
In the absence of this explanation, Garcia proceeds to apply this tremendous amount of mysterious energy to the heating of the materials involved. But instead of taking the quantities of steel, concrete, and other materials into account (don't forget the aircraft itself) Garcia helps us to "expand our range of rationality" by dumbing-down the scenario using a "fictitious homogenized" substance called "ironcrete". Garcia muddies the water with his ironcrete because, although he doesn't give the calculations, this allows him to use a sleight of hand, giving a value for specific heat that is less than that of any of the starting materials. Few would notice, but this means that, in support of Garcia's purposes, it takes less heat to increase the temperature of each kilogram of ironcrete than it would to increase the temperature of the steel and concrete used in the WTC towers. Since he's using eight times more energy than could have been available anyway, this minor scam doesn't seem worth the effort.
But note that Garcia also suggests all the available heat became trapped in his ironcrete, thereby assuming that no hot gases left the impact zone, that no heat escaped by conduction, and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat. He also conveniently ignores all the other materials in the aircraft and the buildings, including the Aluminum, all the office furnishings, and the vast amount of air and water vapor, all of which would be heated too, absorbing energy. Considering his quantum mechanical collapse dynamics and magical fireproofing loss, these distributions of heat energy may not seem so strange, that is until Garcia needs that energy back to support his later claims of melting Aluminum, plastic "cracking" to create dense pockets of hydrocarbon vapors that mimic high-explosives, and even a replay of the beginnings of life on earth (no kidding).
The Dark Matter of Intelligent Fuel
By the time we get to Garcia's third article, we're either believing this guy is the greatest scientist in history, or we're understanding that his series in Counterpunch may be something more of a sucker punch. In this third article, "Dark Fire", Garcia claims to have single-handedly solved the problem that baffled FEMA and NIST, as well as all objective people around the world -- the collapse of WTC 7.
Now if Garcia had proven the quantum behavior of large objects, and had developed a method for extracting eight times the normal amount of energy from a gallon of hydrocarbon fuel, as his previous articles suggest, we might be intrigued. Maybe the title of this third article is a reference to the combustion of the elusive dark matter that Physicists have long sought after. Let's take a look.
The challenge of explaining the collapse of WTC 7 was described by Jim Hoffman with the following three points.
* This steel-framed skyscraper collapsed into its footprint with all the characteristics of a standard controlled demolition. * No other steel-framed building that collapsed for any reason has ever shown any of those features -- let alone all those features. * No other tall steel-framed building has ever collapsed from fires -- the primary cause of WTC 7's collapse according to the official story.
Additionally, we know that FEMA spent eight months of exhaustive work on the investigation, finally claiming that "The performance of WTC 7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers." They then added that their "best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence." NIST has spent several years trying to come up with a legitimate, non-explosive explanation, so far without success. But our hero Garcia takes FEMA's low probability scenario, embellishes it a bit, and boldly declares "This is what happened", leaving no room for doubt.
The initiating event of Garcia's low probability theory is a "hot volley" of "incandescent metal and heated stone" that destroyed a fuel oil distribution pipe in the southwest corner of WTC 7. Where the stone came from we'll never know (maybe it was an asteroid), but the probability that the temperature of the steel from the towers, which NIST measured at 250 C, could cause that steel to glow in incandescence, is essentially nil.
FEMA pointed out a string of improbable events that would need to come together for the rest of this story to pan out, but they made clear that the biggest problem was that WTC 7 first began to collapse on the east side, far from the distribution pipe that Garcia builds his story on. This means that the fuel oil released from any such breakage would need to exhibit the features of an intelligent migration, pumping up from multiple tanks on the ground floor, through the damaged pipe in the southwest corner of the building, traversing a distance of 250 feet across the fifth floor without any spreading or transfer loss, to pool very selectively beneath truss #2 in a mechanical room on the east side of the building.
This theory depends on much more creative guesswork, including the following.
* None of this intelligently migrating fuel oil found its way to the containment vessel that was designed for such an event, and therefore never triggered the safety mechanism that would automatically de-energize the pumps.
* The authorities that decided not to fight the fires in WTC 7 also decided not to cut the power to these pumps, allowing them to spray oil within this burning skyscraper, for up to seven hours, in the middle of Manhattan.
* The pooled fuel oil was somehow heated to a sufficient temperature for ignition, at which point an unknown ignition source initiated an efficient, multi-hour burn.
* Although now situated in an enclosed room with limited space, the oil found limitless Oxygen in order to extract every bit of energy from the assumed maximum amount of 12,000 gallons.
* The fires generated by this burning fuel oil centered in a highly specific formation directly beneath that critical truss, and the heat produced was perfectly contained and directed at the truss itself but nowhere else.
* This truss-specific fire raged for up to seven hours but was never visible from any external view.
* This miraculous fire then caused the failure of that one critical truss, which somehow initiated the total collapse of this 47 story building in just 6.6 seconds.
Garcia's "Dark Fire" piece might as well have been about the combustion of that elusive dark matter, because even if we really wanted to believe his extended string of astounding events, he doesn't address the primary problems of the collapse dynamics. Instead, he simply states "a progressive collapse propagates up and material falls freely." And as with the work of NIST, we're expected to believe that just saying so makes it true.
Begging Off and Catching On
When questioned more closely about his speculative articles, Garcia claimed in an email that he was done talking and writing about these issues, and that folks would need to rely on the authoritative information provided by Frank Greening and Popular Mechanics. In this plea, Garcia says that Greening's results jibe with his, although he was unaware of Greening before he wrote his series. It is clear from his "thermodynamics" piece that Garcia might subscribe to Greening's "Fruit Crumble" theory, where ultra-fine Aluminum and Iron Oxide spontaneously form in the buildings to produce "natural thermite", distributed in just the right forms and places. It could be that Garcia would buy Greening's "They Just Forgot to Use the Bolts" theory as well, if it comes to that. (4)
Government scientists get paid to support government policies, particularly in this era of "Bush Science", and clearly Garcia is willing to play along. But why would political news organizations, like Counterpunch, that present themselves as alternatives to the corporate media, promote these false claims?
Consider for a moment the implications of a breakthrough in the truth about 9/11. If the official story about 9/11 is completely false, as it has proven to be, that fact should call into question those media sources who have helped to cover-up the details over the last five years, even if only through gross negligence of the facts. Whether or not collusion with alternative media was involved, if there is a possibility that the neo-cons actually helped in planning or executing the attacks, then the fact that they pulled it off means that Alexander Cockburn and other (ostensibly) liberal leaders might no longer enjoy the "irreverent and biting" superiority that they identify themselves with. It could be very distressing for some of these rebel leaders to realize that instead of "muckraking with a radical attitude" they have spent years meekly bolstering the status quo.
It appears that these kinds of realizations are inevitable, and actually offer us a chance to improve our situation. In the US, we'll soon have more opportunity to notice the default states in which we are expected to accept scientific authority no matter how illogical, and accept a cartoonish political framework no matter how impotent. In the next few months, these opportunities will come like "hot volleys" from Manuel Garcia, providing stark examples of how pretentious "experts", and other types of fictitious, homogenized (ironcrete) leaders give no real alternatives to the problems we've seen in the last five years.
If our new Democratic Congress will not call for impeachment or a new 9/11 investigation, will they at least repeal the Military Commissions Act, or the Patriot Act? Will they stop construction of Halliburton's secretive "detention centers" or put an end to the illegal 9/11 Wars? Will our government's efforts to protect us from unexplained terrorism ever stop looking exactly like the efforts they would take to protect themselves from us? In other words, will these new leaders, in practice, be any different than the neo-cons? Over the next few months we will realize the answers to these questions, and perhaps then we can begin taking more responsibility for the deception in our lives.
References:
1. There are numerous articles available from LLNL on thermite research. For an example of explosive thermite, see try this one. http://www.llnl.gov/tid/lof/documents/pdf/307362.pdf2. Therese McAllister explains NIST's vague, sweeping assumption of fireproofing loss in her presentation here. http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session6/6McAllister.pdf3. For effective energy flow from one kg of office furnishings, use estimate of 8.4 MJ/kg (a value for wood -- probably a little higher than for the materials involved). See Sfintesco, editor, Fire Safety in Tall Buildings, McGraw Hill, 19924. Gordon Ross explains some of Greening's desperate sounding theories here. http://www.911blogger.com/node/4867
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Asteroids and other serious things.
U.N. Urged to Take Action on Asteroid Threat
Reuters reports that astronauts, sienbntists and others are pointing out that a large asteroid seems to be headed towards planet earth with collision likely in the year 2036.
Someone better get busy with this.
"Although the odds of an impact by this particular asteroid are low, a recent congressional mandate for NASA to upgrade its tracking of near-Earth asteroids is expected to uncover hundreds, if not thousands of threatening space rocks in the near future, former astronaut Rusty Schweickart said.
``It's not just Apophis we're looking at. Every country is at risk. We need a set of general principles to deal with this issue,'' Schweickart, a member of the Apollo 9 crew that orbited the earth in March 1969, told an American Association for the Advancement of Science conference in San Francisco.
While we're on the subject of potential disasters I must make a confession and a recantation. For years I have been a global warming skeptic. No more. No doubt the percentage of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is increasing, no doubt the climate is gradually warming with already dramatic effects and no doubt the human race must do something. I've been skeptical because of my rock solid opposition to zero or negative population growth propaganda. I continue to believe that with few exceptions every human child born on earth has the potential of contributing much more to the benefit of society and humanity than of taking from it. I know that the North American suburban lifestyle model, with its two car families, humonguos consumption of energy and generation of waste is not a viable model for our planet or humanity's future. It's more like a cancer on the face of the earth.
Category Four and Five hurricaines have hit the New york City area in the past, though by good fortune not hit the city directly full force. Such a hurricaine would be a disaster making perhaps that of New Orleans look tame.
New York City is overdue for a major hurricane. A look at a map shows how Long Island Sound and New York Harbor which are both arms of the Atlantic Ocean are connected by the funnel like "East River"( which is not really a river). Winds that are clocked at 150 mph at ground level are much more ferocious at higher elevations. Here we have apartment buildings of 20, 30 and 40 stories in height not to mention the gigantic glass facade eyesores of midtown and downtown Manhattan. There is no promise from god that these buildings at their heights will withstand those fierce winds when they do come - and it's a question of "when" and not if -New York is a city of over eight million people. The evacuation plan is of course the same as the one on display in New Orleans - every man for hmself.http://www.nypress.com/print.cfm?content_id=13427
New York City's biggest vulnerability is the most unyielding—geology. The New York bight is the right angle formed by Long Island and New Jersey with the city tucked into its apex. "Hurricanes do not like right angles," Lee says. "[They allow] water to accumulate and pile up."
Couple this with the fact that New York resides on a very shallow continental shelf, and as a big storm pushes north, New York Harbor "acts as a funnel." As storm surge forces its way into the harbor and up the rivers, it has nowhere to go but onto land. New York City, it turns out, has some of the highest storm-surge values in the country. "When we see a category-3 storm making landfall in Florida, it may only have a 12-, 13-foot storm surge," Lee says. "For us here, a category-1 storm can give us 12 feet of storm surge."
Storm surge is the dome of seawater that is lifted up and pushed forward in front of a hurricane. It acts almost like a mini-tsunami, causing sea levels to rise rapidly and violently. Most people believe that high winds and rains are the main dangers of a hurricane. In fact, inland flooding caused by storm surge is the big killer. In 1821, stunned colonial New Yorkers recorded sea levels rising as fast as 13 feet in a single hour at the Battery. The East River and Hudson Rivers merged over Lower Manhattan all the way to Canal Street. According to Coch, the fact that the 1821 storm struck at low tide "is the only thing that saved the city."
To get a sense of the damage that storm surge can do to New York City, call 311 and ask them to send you a full-color copy of the New York City Hurricane Evacuation Map. It is a truly mind-boggling document. If a storm like the Long Island Express makes a direct hit on the city, everything below Broome Street will be inundated, some parts under as much as 20 and 30 feet of water. Chelsea and Greenwich Village are completely flooded, with the Hudson spilling over all the way to 7th Avenue. Likewise, the East River and East Village become one, with ocean water surging all the way to 1st Avenue. If you haven't evacuated before the storm, forget it. During the storm, Manhattan's east- and west-side highways vanish. Tunnels and bridges become unusable.
The outer boroughs also get hit hard. Opposed to that new Ikea being built on the waterfront in Red Hook? Don't worry. There's a decent chance it won't be there after a moderate-size hurricane. Residents of Williamsburg-Greenpoint should seek out a male and female of each species and get in their arks. In a kind of one-two-punch effect, a major hurricane will push ocean water down from the Long Island Sound into the Upper East Side, South Bronx and northern Queens, flooding those areas severely. Vast stretches of southern Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island will be devastated. The map shows Atlantic Ocean storm surge reaching as far inland as Flatbush, just south of Prospect Park, with 31.3 feet of water atop Howard Beach.
"A lot of people say, 'How can you come up with these numbers? Thirty feet, that's ridiculous. It's science fiction.' Actually," Lee says, "It's science fact." Hurricanes in the southern U.S. have proven the Army Corps of Engineers' storm-surge calculations to be accurate within a few inches.
For a taste of what will happen to the city's infrastructure, we can look at the damage wrought by the great nor'easters of the early 1990s. During those storms, the L train had to be backed out as the 14th Street tunnel began filling with water, and the FDR highway was so badly inundated that 50 motorists had to be rescued by dive teams. In the event of a direct hit by a category-3 hurricane, surge maps show that the Holland and Battery Tunnels will be completely filled with sea water, with many subway and railroad tunnels severely flooded as well. The runways of LaGuardia and JFK airports will get flooded by 18.1 and 31.2 feet of water, respectively.
Then there are the winds. The city's two million trees will be a huge problem. "New York City's trees haven't been stressed in years except for an isolated severe thunderstorm or two," Wyllie says. They've had plenty of time to grow and wrap their roots around underground phone, electric, gas and water lines. As they are uprooted in the heavy winds, a lot of infrastructure both above and below ground is going to get wrecked.
As for skyscrapers, "The impact of catastrophic winds on high-rise buildings is still a little vague," Lee says. "We don't feel we have enough data on that."
We do know that hurricane wind speeds multiply at higher altitudes. At 350 feet, the height of high-rise buildings on the Battery and the towers of the George Washington Bridge, hurricane winds will be twice as fast as they are on the ground. Newer, glass-skinned towers are not likely to do well in those conditions. Neither will human beings caught outside amidst flying debris. To give a sense of the unbelievable force of hurricane winds, Lee shows a photo from one of the four storms that struck Florida last year. It depicts a blunt piece of two-by-four driven straight through the trunk of a palm tree.
"It would be nasty," Wyllie agrees. "If you get sustained winds going 80 to 90 miles per hour in the city—whoa, you can't believe the destruction. We've never seen that. And as you go up 200, 300 feet," he considers that for a moment. "That'll be 100, 110 mph winds. Watch out."
Counterpunch May Be Edging Away From 9/11 Gatekeeper Role.
I bought a subscription Counterpunch in order to read their item about Israel and 9/11. IT was all old stuff, familiar to 9/11 Truth seekers who have been vilified by Counterpunch for years. Not that they've turned full circle, but that may just be a matter of time. We shouldn't be too harsh on them if they ease on over to where the majority of their readers no doubt already are, that is to say in the camp of thise who do not accept the official version of the 9/11 attacks.
I had in the past advertised with Counterpunch but it seems they've stopped taking ads. Probably because advertisers either carried or linked to the non kosher websites that have been pulling the covers off the 9/11 story for years.
I'd like to see them take ads again and I would surely be among the first to advertise with them.
9/11 Truth Org.com ran this review, and since I agree more or less with their take on this I am giving it to you to consider.
Friday, February 9 2007
An overview of C. Ketcham's groundbreaking piece in CounterPunch:What did Israel Know In Advance of the September 11 Attacks?Normally, we'd throw caution to the wind, copyright-wise, and reprint an article like this in its entirety, but this particular issue is, thus far, for paying CounterPunch subscribers. We urge you to email or call Counterpunch to see about purchasing this single issue, as it will be a valuable part of any 9/11 library. Meanwhile, we bring you some important chunks.
The running of this story shows how, as the tonnage of evidence begins to weigh on people's minds, the media is creeping into covering the serious 9/11 questions. Many who have publically derided the "truth movement" — like Counterpunch co-editor Alexander Cockburn — now deliver the goods on back roads, or with pretexts that trump their previous diatribes. Had the focus of Christopher Ketcham's article been on Pakistani, rather than Israeli, involvement with 9/11, one has to wonder if CounterPunch would have run it. In a sidebar introduction to Ketcham's piece, the editors write:
Yes, when it comes to Israel and the U.S. press we are familiar with obstructions to raising edgy topics. That’s why we’re glad we have CounterPunch, to welcome good reporters like Ketcham in from the cold.
But more importantly, Christopher Ketcham has put together a phenomenal synthesis of the highly suspicious Israeli intelligence activities in the U.S. on and before 9/11. An enormous network of "art students", many of whom were located just blocks from the (alleged) 9/11 hijackers; and a small group of five or six Israeli intelligence operatives who were witnessed by many celebrating on a rooftop, with surveillance equipment, very soon after the first plane hit the Trade Center. Ketcham goes beyond previous coverage especially by framing out questions with little fear of the implications:
The questions abound: Did the Urban Moving Systems Israelis, ready to “document the event”, arrive at the waterfront before the first plane came in from the north? And if they arrived right after, why did they believe it was a terrorist attack? . . . Did the U.S. government receive more advance information about the attacks from Israeli authorities than it is willing to admit? What about the 9/11 Commission’s eliding of reported Israeli warnings that may have led to the watchlisting of Mihdhar and Hazmi? Were the Israeli warnings purposely washed from the historical record? Did the CIA know more about pre-9/11 Israeli spying than it has admitted?
The stories are not new -- The Israeli magazine Forward covered the "art student" spy ring story, as did Fox News, and there were numerous small reports about the "high-fivers" posing as movers in New Jersey. But Ketcham has deepened the reporting of both stories significantly, and has shown them in relation to eachother. Importantly, he has cultivated important sources within the U.S. intelligence community who could confirm how significant these spying activities were:
According to the former CIA counterterrorism officer with knowledge of investigations into 9/11-related Israeli espionage, when law enforcement officials examined the “art students” phenomenon, they came to the tentative conclusion that “the Israelis likely had a huge spy operation in the U.S. and that they had succeeded in identifying a number of the hijackers”. ...The veteran CIA/NSA intelligence operative told me in 2002 that there was “a great press to discredit the story, discredit the connections, prevent [investigators] from going any further. People were told to stand down. You name the agency, they were told to stand down”.
Thanks to a fine network of sources, Ketcham sheds light on the sort of complexity which may have been behind the operation:
Investigative journalist John Sugg . . . told me that investigators he spoke to within FBI felt the “art student” ring functioned as a wide-ranging cover that was counterintuitive in its obviousness. DEA investigators, for example, uncovered evidence connecting the Israeli “art students” to known ecstasy trafficking operations in New York and Florida. This was, according to Sugg, planted information. “The explanation was that when our FBI guys started getting interested in these folks [the art students] – when they got too close to what the real purpose was – the Israelis threw in an ecstasy angle”, Sugg told me. “The argument being that if our guys thought the Israelis were involved in a smuggling ring, then they wouldn’t see the real purpose of the operation”. Sugg, who is writing a book that explores the tale of the “art students”, told me that several sources within the FBI, and at least one source formerly with Israeli intelligence, suggested that “the bumbling aspect of the art student thing was intentional.”
There is an additional little bonus article in this issue, called "The Kuala Lumpur Deceit", in which Ketcham, having analysed a very fascinating, in-depth home-brew intelligence document created by Gerald Shea ("The Gerald Shea Memo" -- Make sure to look at the maps at the end of this document.) shows how the CIA and FBI could not have on their own come to the conclusion that Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar should be watchlisted: Instead, he concludes, the information about these two, who had been in a meeting in Kuala Lampur with other al Qaeda planners, almost certainly came from Israeli sources.
The media component of this story, of which Ketcham is the latest chapter — is almost as fascinating as the spying itself. With the saga of Salon.com and The Nation rejecting this story in knee-jerk last minutes, and the other media incidents that Ketcham reports, we can measure the exact length of the mainstream media's leash:
A former ABC News employee high up in the network newsroom told me that when ABC News ran its June 2002 exposé on the celebratory New Jersey Israelis, “Enormous pressure was brought to bear by pro-Israeli organizations” – and this pressure began months before the piece was even close to airing. The source said that ABC News colleagues wondered, “how they [the pro-Israel organizations] found out we were doing the story. Pro- Israeli people were calling the president of ABC News. Barbara Walters was getting bombarded by calls. The story was a hard sell but ABC News came through – the management insulated [reporters] from the pressure”.
Fox News, to its credit, ran an initial series of pieces about the art student spy ring, but, in a meeting with "good old boys" from the Israeli lobby, they caved, feeling they had to end to a barrage of hate mail and negative punditry. Afterward, they even removed the story from the Fox News web archives (Though it is archived here). Ketcham writes that, "Following this meeting, within four days of the posting of Cameron’s series on Fox News.com, the transcripts disappeared, replaced by the message, 'This story no longer exists'".
Amy Goodman had Ketcham and Cockburn on "Democracy Now," on February 8, and did a decent interview with them about the story. But amazingly, she failed to ask Cockburn how running this article squared with how he has been spitting acid at the 9/11 truth movement for years. One would hope that this article will provide Cockburn cover so that he can broaden CounterPunch's (and some day The Nation's?) consideration of 9/11.
This caliber of reporting will be important to maintaining an even keel as the truth emerges on higher and higher levels of public consciousness. Make sure to read this phenomenal piece and let Ketcham know how much it is appreciated, especially so that his talents and sources can continue to bear fruit in the broad inquiry for truth about September 11. Perhaps sending appreciative notes to Mr. Cockburn could continue a thawing process somewhere in there. --- Michael Richardson
Fair Use NoticeThis page contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political issues relating to alternative views of the 9/11 events, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
I had in the past advertised with Counterpunch but it seems they've stopped taking ads. Probably because advertisers either carried or linked to the non kosher websites that have been pulling the covers off the 9/11 story for years.
I'd like to see them take ads again and I would surely be among the first to advertise with them.
9/11 Truth Org.com ran this review, and since I agree more or less with their take on this I am giving it to you to consider.
Friday, February 9 2007
An overview of C. Ketcham's groundbreaking piece in CounterPunch:What did Israel Know In Advance of the September 11 Attacks?Normally, we'd throw caution to the wind, copyright-wise, and reprint an article like this in its entirety, but this particular issue is, thus far, for paying CounterPunch subscribers. We urge you to email or call Counterpunch to see about purchasing this single issue, as it will be a valuable part of any 9/11 library. Meanwhile, we bring you some important chunks.
The running of this story shows how, as the tonnage of evidence begins to weigh on people's minds, the media is creeping into covering the serious 9/11 questions. Many who have publically derided the "truth movement" — like Counterpunch co-editor Alexander Cockburn — now deliver the goods on back roads, or with pretexts that trump their previous diatribes. Had the focus of Christopher Ketcham's article been on Pakistani, rather than Israeli, involvement with 9/11, one has to wonder if CounterPunch would have run it. In a sidebar introduction to Ketcham's piece, the editors write:
Yes, when it comes to Israel and the U.S. press we are familiar with obstructions to raising edgy topics. That’s why we’re glad we have CounterPunch, to welcome good reporters like Ketcham in from the cold.
But more importantly, Christopher Ketcham has put together a phenomenal synthesis of the highly suspicious Israeli intelligence activities in the U.S. on and before 9/11. An enormous network of "art students", many of whom were located just blocks from the (alleged) 9/11 hijackers; and a small group of five or six Israeli intelligence operatives who were witnessed by many celebrating on a rooftop, with surveillance equipment, very soon after the first plane hit the Trade Center. Ketcham goes beyond previous coverage especially by framing out questions with little fear of the implications:
The questions abound: Did the Urban Moving Systems Israelis, ready to “document the event”, arrive at the waterfront before the first plane came in from the north? And if they arrived right after, why did they believe it was a terrorist attack? . . . Did the U.S. government receive more advance information about the attacks from Israeli authorities than it is willing to admit? What about the 9/11 Commission’s eliding of reported Israeli warnings that may have led to the watchlisting of Mihdhar and Hazmi? Were the Israeli warnings purposely washed from the historical record? Did the CIA know more about pre-9/11 Israeli spying than it has admitted?
The stories are not new -- The Israeli magazine Forward covered the "art student" spy ring story, as did Fox News, and there were numerous small reports about the "high-fivers" posing as movers in New Jersey. But Ketcham has deepened the reporting of both stories significantly, and has shown them in relation to eachother. Importantly, he has cultivated important sources within the U.S. intelligence community who could confirm how significant these spying activities were:
According to the former CIA counterterrorism officer with knowledge of investigations into 9/11-related Israeli espionage, when law enforcement officials examined the “art students” phenomenon, they came to the tentative conclusion that “the Israelis likely had a huge spy operation in the U.S. and that they had succeeded in identifying a number of the hijackers”. ...The veteran CIA/NSA intelligence operative told me in 2002 that there was “a great press to discredit the story, discredit the connections, prevent [investigators] from going any further. People were told to stand down. You name the agency, they were told to stand down”.
Thanks to a fine network of sources, Ketcham sheds light on the sort of complexity which may have been behind the operation:
Investigative journalist John Sugg . . . told me that investigators he spoke to within FBI felt the “art student” ring functioned as a wide-ranging cover that was counterintuitive in its obviousness. DEA investigators, for example, uncovered evidence connecting the Israeli “art students” to known ecstasy trafficking operations in New York and Florida. This was, according to Sugg, planted information. “The explanation was that when our FBI guys started getting interested in these folks [the art students] – when they got too close to what the real purpose was – the Israelis threw in an ecstasy angle”, Sugg told me. “The argument being that if our guys thought the Israelis were involved in a smuggling ring, then they wouldn’t see the real purpose of the operation”. Sugg, who is writing a book that explores the tale of the “art students”, told me that several sources within the FBI, and at least one source formerly with Israeli intelligence, suggested that “the bumbling aspect of the art student thing was intentional.”
There is an additional little bonus article in this issue, called "The Kuala Lumpur Deceit", in which Ketcham, having analysed a very fascinating, in-depth home-brew intelligence document created by Gerald Shea ("The Gerald Shea Memo" -- Make sure to look at the maps at the end of this document.) shows how the CIA and FBI could not have on their own come to the conclusion that Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar should be watchlisted: Instead, he concludes, the information about these two, who had been in a meeting in Kuala Lampur with other al Qaeda planners, almost certainly came from Israeli sources.
The media component of this story, of which Ketcham is the latest chapter — is almost as fascinating as the spying itself. With the saga of Salon.com and The Nation rejecting this story in knee-jerk last minutes, and the other media incidents that Ketcham reports, we can measure the exact length of the mainstream media's leash:
A former ABC News employee high up in the network newsroom told me that when ABC News ran its June 2002 exposé on the celebratory New Jersey Israelis, “Enormous pressure was brought to bear by pro-Israeli organizations” – and this pressure began months before the piece was even close to airing. The source said that ABC News colleagues wondered, “how they [the pro-Israel organizations] found out we were doing the story. Pro- Israeli people were calling the president of ABC News. Barbara Walters was getting bombarded by calls. The story was a hard sell but ABC News came through – the management insulated [reporters] from the pressure”.
Fox News, to its credit, ran an initial series of pieces about the art student spy ring, but, in a meeting with "good old boys" from the Israeli lobby, they caved, feeling they had to end to a barrage of hate mail and negative punditry. Afterward, they even removed the story from the Fox News web archives (Though it is archived here). Ketcham writes that, "Following this meeting, within four days of the posting of Cameron’s series on Fox News.com, the transcripts disappeared, replaced by the message, 'This story no longer exists'".
Amy Goodman had Ketcham and Cockburn on "Democracy Now," on February 8, and did a decent interview with them about the story. But amazingly, she failed to ask Cockburn how running this article squared with how he has been spitting acid at the 9/11 truth movement for years. One would hope that this article will provide Cockburn cover so that he can broaden CounterPunch's (and some day The Nation's?) consideration of 9/11.
This caliber of reporting will be important to maintaining an even keel as the truth emerges on higher and higher levels of public consciousness. Make sure to read this phenomenal piece and let Ketcham know how much it is appreciated, especially so that his talents and sources can continue to bear fruit in the broad inquiry for truth about September 11. Perhaps sending appreciative notes to Mr. Cockburn could continue a thawing process somewhere in there. --- Michael Richardson
Fair Use NoticeThis page contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political issues relating to alternative views of the 9/11 events, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Your Tax Dollars At Work (City of New York, State of New York and US taxpayers pay for wack record keeping at ACS.)
P.S.-TMS Consulting
The City of NY - Administration for Children Services (ACS-II)
Currently providing services to ACS to fully implement a legal tracking system to replace the existing child abuse case system. This automation is an extensive effort expecting to last for 4-5 years. It is intended that this automation will provide a standard cohesive link amongst all units and division of legal services. Responsibilities include design, development, implementation, documentation, training and operational support. Specifically, these project responsibilities include the following:
c
Support of attorney's everyday needs via the implementation of the tracking software.
c
Define systems requirements, construct business models, and build both logical and physical data structure designs.
c
Design, develop and program the application and database architecture.Provide guidance in establishing a development, test, conversion and a production environment.
c
Develop a data conversion plan; define conversion requirements from current system.
c
Develop a system testing strategy to include test plans/cases; conduct integrated component application testing.
c
Assist in the development of a phased implementation plan.
c
Create and provide assistance with a migration strategy and rollout plan for system functional components.
c
Assist in the migration of the enterprise system to the tracking system with the software upgraded to ACS standards.
c
Provide technical assistance on software product installation and testing.
c
Provide on site training on the software products used to develop and install the tracking system.
Maybe once the thing is implemented in 4-5 years ACS will be publishing timely statistics again. For right now the statistics about child removals that ACS puts out are abut as correct as three dollar bills.
What all this means os that ACS can lie about how many kids it removes, how many cases there are per worker and so forth. And with ACS any convienient lie that can be told will be told.
Here's what I mean>
ACS latest removal statistics make no sense, and if you read the excuses from TMS consulting above, and read to the end of this article it should become clearer.
The most recent month for which ACS gives court case and removal statistics is November, 2006. They do not jibe with ACS practice nor recent historical statistics. ACS reports a nice neat and even 1000 cout cases brought against parents that month yet only 561 removals. Compare that to their statistics of recent months:July 2004 had 483 children in ACS legal actions, with 466 admitted into foster care. April 2005 had 491 children in legal actions, with 407 admitted into foster care. June 524 in court cases, 418 admitted into foster care. The court case numbers and the numbers admitted had some relation to one another.
Now it's the connection falls away. November 2006, the most recent month that shows statistics has 1035 children in court cases, 561 admitted to foster care. Rember John Mattingly, ACS Commissioner told the world that 65 foster children had been used in experiments to see how harmful HIV medications are, then he told the world that a box of records had been found in a basement and that "approximately 465" had been experimented on and just a few months ago another box of records and another higher number of guinea pig children was revised upwards still again. ACS has been and is a dysfunctional agency that does not know what it is doing.
For sure they are doing more harm than good.
You could say they're getting away with murder...
Putting Your Business Out On the Street For All Th...
An Open Letter To Amy Goodman (and to you).
"You Have To Leave, or You'll Get Tazed Too"
The City of NY - Administration for Children Services (ACS-II)
Currently providing services to ACS to fully implement a legal tracking system to replace the existing child abuse case system. This automation is an extensive effort expecting to last for 4-5 years. It is intended that this automation will provide a standard cohesive link amongst all units and division of legal services. Responsibilities include design, development, implementation, documentation, training and operational support. Specifically, these project responsibilities include the following:
c
Support of attorney's everyday needs via the implementation of the tracking software.
c
Define systems requirements, construct business models, and build both logical and physical data structure designs.
c
Design, develop and program the application and database architecture.Provide guidance in establishing a development, test, conversion and a production environment.
c
Develop a data conversion plan; define conversion requirements from current system.
c
Develop a system testing strategy to include test plans/cases; conduct integrated component application testing.
c
Assist in the development of a phased implementation plan.
c
Create and provide assistance with a migration strategy and rollout plan for system functional components.
c
Assist in the migration of the enterprise system to the tracking system with the software upgraded to ACS standards.
c
Provide technical assistance on software product installation and testing.
c
Provide on site training on the software products used to develop and install the tracking system.
Maybe once the thing is implemented in 4-5 years ACS will be publishing timely statistics again. For right now the statistics about child removals that ACS puts out are abut as correct as three dollar bills.
What all this means os that ACS can lie about how many kids it removes, how many cases there are per worker and so forth. And with ACS any convienient lie that can be told will be told.
Here's what I mean>
ACS latest removal statistics make no sense, and if you read the excuses from TMS consulting above, and read to the end of this article it should become clearer.
The most recent month for which ACS gives court case and removal statistics is November, 2006. They do not jibe with ACS practice nor recent historical statistics. ACS reports a nice neat and even 1000 cout cases brought against parents that month yet only 561 removals. Compare that to their statistics of recent months:July 2004 had 483 children in ACS legal actions, with 466 admitted into foster care. April 2005 had 491 children in legal actions, with 407 admitted into foster care. June 524 in court cases, 418 admitted into foster care. The court case numbers and the numbers admitted had some relation to one another.
Now it's the connection falls away. November 2006, the most recent month that shows statistics has 1035 children in court cases, 561 admitted to foster care. Rember John Mattingly, ACS Commissioner told the world that 65 foster children had been used in experiments to see how harmful HIV medications are, then he told the world that a box of records had been found in a basement and that "approximately 465" had been experimented on and just a few months ago another box of records and another higher number of guinea pig children was revised upwards still again. ACS has been and is a dysfunctional agency that does not know what it is doing.
For sure they are doing more harm than good.
You could say they're getting away with murder...
Putting Your Business Out On the Street For All Th...
An Open Letter To Amy Goodman (and to you).
"You Have To Leave, or You'll Get Tazed Too"
Friday, February 16, 2007
(Great White) Father Knows Best (Or Windbags Critique the Venezuelan Revolution.)
Ah, armchair revolutionaries of the imperialist North, ever vigilant and on the lookout for sellouts and misleaders, particularly those found confronting the world's only superpower. Of course these are "sellouts" of the Third World who are actually responsible for the well being of their countries.
"Let's you and him fight" seems to be the slogan of these vigilant leftists.
I'm thinking specifically about the World Socialist Website (WSW) but the shoe may fit other feet as well.
And oh, yes they're so much more militant and revolutionary than people like Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales are and they know so much more about Marxist theory than they do. Of course, Morales and Chavez have overcome the opposition of the world's only superpower and that superpowers friends, agents, and hangers on within their own societies and won the trust of millions of workers and poor in their countries, to come to break the power of oligarchical politics, but the question is of course, how purely Morales and Chavez conform to the preconceived notions of what revolutionary leaders "must" do. (After all these great white fathers have decades of experience observing and critiquing other's methods of struggle.)
What really ticked me off about this World Socialist Website article was the description of President Chavez as a coup plotter. Lt. Colonel Hugo Chavez did lead an attempt to overthrow a corrupt dictatorship that had just massacred hundreds (if you believe today's Venezuelan oppositionists) or thousands (if you subscribe to the more accepted view) of Venezuelan citizens on the streets of the capital city Caracas. This attempt was in concert with civilians as well and although sadly it failed, in leading this justified and revolutionary coup effort Chavez earned the trust and love of millions of his countrymen and women and the Venezuelan government was forced to release him from jail. Chavez went on soon after to win election to the presidency without and against the entrenched oligarchical political parties and their henchman media.
If only we had truly patriotic soldiers who would arrest or try to arrest the criminal Bush and his associates and shut down the lying radio and television stations who abuse the publicly owned frequencies to serve as accomplices in crimes committed from New York to New Orleans to Iraq. If only we had twenty Lt. Colonel Hugo Chavez.
These revolutionary critics say:
"At the same time, declarations like those of Chavez and Correa about ushering in a “21st century socialism” notwithstanding, these governments have universally defended capitalist private property, abided by the general prescriptions of the international financial institutions, and maintained intact the traditional military and repressive forces of the states they lead.
In many ways, the policies advocated by Chavez—the former paratrooper lieutenant colonel and coup leader—far from signaling a resurgence of socialism, represent an echo of the kind of economic nationalism and military populism associated with figures such as Juan Peron in Argentina, or, in a later period, Gen. Omar Torrijos of Panama and Gen. Juan Velasquez Alvarado of Peru.
As for the new Venezuelan “nationalizations,” there seems to be considerably less there than meets the eye. While Chavez presented his proposals as a matter of Venezuela seeking to “recover its ownership of strategic sectors,” the actual targets for state takeover are of relatively little importance.
CANTV is by no means a telephone monopoly. The company’s land lines cover barely 11 percent of the population,..."
CNTV has not fulfilled its promise made when a previous government sold control of CNTV to Americans to expand coverage throughout Venezuela, much of which has no access to telephone service or the internet. CNTV was also in violation of Venezuelan social security and labor regulations. Controlling interest in CNTV was bought out by the Venezuelan government from US telecommunications giant Verizon for considerably less than they had been offered by Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim. Here is WSW's speculative take on the matter:
"Telmex has faced stiff competition from Spain’s Telefónica, which is a minority shareholder in CANTV but controls its own cell phone company in Venezuela, Movistar, which has captured 48 percent of the market. There is speculation that the nationalization may be, in part, an attempt to derail the deal with Slim and favor Telefónica by protecting the Spanish company from its main rival..."
"There is speculation" indeed. Some of it is being stopped right now:
"Another motive in taking over CANTV is to remove the country’s largest publicly traded company from the market. The company’s shares, which are traded both in Caracas (for bolivars) and on Wall Street (for dollars), have served as means for Venezuelan financiers to funnel capital out of the country and turn their assets into dollar holdings abroad, contributing to a drain of capital and the country’s 18 percent inflation rate..."
And perhaps such an effort to stop capital flight from a poor third world country is not sufficiently revolutionary?
Venezuela is a country with no nuclear weapons, and no USSR to step in on its behalf and it is confronting the world's behemoth superpower. It is a country of twenty seven million people, two times the size of California suffering with poverty, unemployment, inflation, speculation in foodstuffs. Often called "oil rich" Venezuela has a national budget roughly equal to the municipal budget of New York City. Venezuela will need foriegn capital for the foreseeable future to continue assisting in developing its resources and infrastructure. Venezuela's leaders apparently believe that in order to attract this capital Venezuela must demonstrate that it is a country of laws and that contracts will be respected. No doubt these critical revolutionaries are busily expropriating capitalists wherever they find them.
"The Chavez initiative in the oil sector has much in common with the “nationalization” proclaimed by President Evo Morales of Bolivia’s natural gas reserves, though Chavez seems to be forgoing the dramatic effect of sending troops into the oil fields. It is, in short, an attempt to negotiate with the multinational energy companies operating in the Orinoco oil belt—ExxonMobil, Conoco, Chevron and the French firm Total—a majority stake in oil production for the state-owned PDVSA and a bigger share of the profits reaped by their joint ventures..."
Crime of crimes! Sell out of all sell outs! Venezuela is to have a majority stake in its main industry and a bigger share of its profits! No doubt according to these critics Trotsky would be rolling in his grave were he to to hear this. (Trotsky was a left revolutionary Bolshevik who opposed the bureaucratic deformation of the USSR that was led by Stalin. He wanted to spread the revolution by all possible means and wanted the revolution deepen and expand permanently. Sadly once he was exiled his banner often attracted people who hated the Bolshevik revolution and who despised the efforts of the oppressed to liberate themselves, and sought hyper-revolutionary ways of expressing this arrogance and contempt.)
And these arrogant WSW white folks get personal too:
"Whether Hugo Chavez has any more familiarity with Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution than having seen the words imprinted on a book cover is not known..."
Would that these scholars could have been paratroop officers in Venezuela stepping out to free their people from poverty, illiteracy and underdevlopment.
"It is impossible for these countries to free themselves from the grip of imperialism on the basis of a national revolution led by any section of the bourgeoisie or its representatives—including radicalized military officers. That task can be achieved only by means of the independent political mobilization of the working class as part of an international revolutionary class to put an end to capitalism." In other words to the wretched of the earth and those situated to help lead them forward:
"Wait for us."
"Let's you and him fight" seems to be the slogan of these vigilant leftists.
I'm thinking specifically about the World Socialist Website (WSW) but the shoe may fit other feet as well.
And oh, yes they're so much more militant and revolutionary than people like Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales are and they know so much more about Marxist theory than they do. Of course, Morales and Chavez have overcome the opposition of the world's only superpower and that superpowers friends, agents, and hangers on within their own societies and won the trust of millions of workers and poor in their countries, to come to break the power of oligarchical politics, but the question is of course, how purely Morales and Chavez conform to the preconceived notions of what revolutionary leaders "must" do. (After all these great white fathers have decades of experience observing and critiquing other's methods of struggle.)
What really ticked me off about this World Socialist Website article was the description of President Chavez as a coup plotter. Lt. Colonel Hugo Chavez did lead an attempt to overthrow a corrupt dictatorship that had just massacred hundreds (if you believe today's Venezuelan oppositionists) or thousands (if you subscribe to the more accepted view) of Venezuelan citizens on the streets of the capital city Caracas. This attempt was in concert with civilians as well and although sadly it failed, in leading this justified and revolutionary coup effort Chavez earned the trust and love of millions of his countrymen and women and the Venezuelan government was forced to release him from jail. Chavez went on soon after to win election to the presidency without and against the entrenched oligarchical political parties and their henchman media.
If only we had truly patriotic soldiers who would arrest or try to arrest the criminal Bush and his associates and shut down the lying radio and television stations who abuse the publicly owned frequencies to serve as accomplices in crimes committed from New York to New Orleans to Iraq. If only we had twenty Lt. Colonel Hugo Chavez.
These revolutionary critics say:
"At the same time, declarations like those of Chavez and Correa about ushering in a “21st century socialism” notwithstanding, these governments have universally defended capitalist private property, abided by the general prescriptions of the international financial institutions, and maintained intact the traditional military and repressive forces of the states they lead.
In many ways, the policies advocated by Chavez—the former paratrooper lieutenant colonel and coup leader—far from signaling a resurgence of socialism, represent an echo of the kind of economic nationalism and military populism associated with figures such as Juan Peron in Argentina, or, in a later period, Gen. Omar Torrijos of Panama and Gen. Juan Velasquez Alvarado of Peru.
As for the new Venezuelan “nationalizations,” there seems to be considerably less there than meets the eye. While Chavez presented his proposals as a matter of Venezuela seeking to “recover its ownership of strategic sectors,” the actual targets for state takeover are of relatively little importance.
CANTV is by no means a telephone monopoly. The company’s land lines cover barely 11 percent of the population,..."
CNTV has not fulfilled its promise made when a previous government sold control of CNTV to Americans to expand coverage throughout Venezuela, much of which has no access to telephone service or the internet. CNTV was also in violation of Venezuelan social security and labor regulations. Controlling interest in CNTV was bought out by the Venezuelan government from US telecommunications giant Verizon for considerably less than they had been offered by Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim. Here is WSW's speculative take on the matter:
"Telmex has faced stiff competition from Spain’s Telefónica, which is a minority shareholder in CANTV but controls its own cell phone company in Venezuela, Movistar, which has captured 48 percent of the market. There is speculation that the nationalization may be, in part, an attempt to derail the deal with Slim and favor Telefónica by protecting the Spanish company from its main rival..."
"There is speculation" indeed. Some of it is being stopped right now:
"Another motive in taking over CANTV is to remove the country’s largest publicly traded company from the market. The company’s shares, which are traded both in Caracas (for bolivars) and on Wall Street (for dollars), have served as means for Venezuelan financiers to funnel capital out of the country and turn their assets into dollar holdings abroad, contributing to a drain of capital and the country’s 18 percent inflation rate..."
And perhaps such an effort to stop capital flight from a poor third world country is not sufficiently revolutionary?
Venezuela is a country with no nuclear weapons, and no USSR to step in on its behalf and it is confronting the world's behemoth superpower. It is a country of twenty seven million people, two times the size of California suffering with poverty, unemployment, inflation, speculation in foodstuffs. Often called "oil rich" Venezuela has a national budget roughly equal to the municipal budget of New York City. Venezuela will need foriegn capital for the foreseeable future to continue assisting in developing its resources and infrastructure. Venezuela's leaders apparently believe that in order to attract this capital Venezuela must demonstrate that it is a country of laws and that contracts will be respected. No doubt these critical revolutionaries are busily expropriating capitalists wherever they find them.
"The Chavez initiative in the oil sector has much in common with the “nationalization” proclaimed by President Evo Morales of Bolivia’s natural gas reserves, though Chavez seems to be forgoing the dramatic effect of sending troops into the oil fields. It is, in short, an attempt to negotiate with the multinational energy companies operating in the Orinoco oil belt—ExxonMobil, Conoco, Chevron and the French firm Total—a majority stake in oil production for the state-owned PDVSA and a bigger share of the profits reaped by their joint ventures..."
Crime of crimes! Sell out of all sell outs! Venezuela is to have a majority stake in its main industry and a bigger share of its profits! No doubt according to these critics Trotsky would be rolling in his grave were he to to hear this. (Trotsky was a left revolutionary Bolshevik who opposed the bureaucratic deformation of the USSR that was led by Stalin. He wanted to spread the revolution by all possible means and wanted the revolution deepen and expand permanently. Sadly once he was exiled his banner often attracted people who hated the Bolshevik revolution and who despised the efforts of the oppressed to liberate themselves, and sought hyper-revolutionary ways of expressing this arrogance and contempt.)
And these arrogant WSW white folks get personal too:
"Whether Hugo Chavez has any more familiarity with Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution than having seen the words imprinted on a book cover is not known..."
Would that these scholars could have been paratroop officers in Venezuela stepping out to free their people from poverty, illiteracy and underdevlopment.
"It is impossible for these countries to free themselves from the grip of imperialism on the basis of a national revolution led by any section of the bourgeoisie or its representatives—including radicalized military officers. That task can be achieved only by means of the independent political mobilization of the working class as part of an international revolutionary class to put an end to capitalism." In other words to the wretched of the earth and those situated to help lead them forward:
"Wait for us."
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Lone Nuts, Anthrax and Airplane Crashes
John F. Kennedy (May 29, 1917 – November 22, 1963)
Robert F. Kennedy (November 20, 1925 – June 6, 1968)
Martin Luther King, Jr. (January 15, 1929 – April 4, 1968),
Thomas Hale Boggs, Sr. (February 15, 1914 – October 16, 1972),
Mel Carnahan (February 11, 1934 – October 16, 2000),
Paul Wellstone (July 21, 1944 – October 25, 2002),
John Fitzgerald Kennedy Jr. (November 25, 1960 – July 16, 1999),
Patrick Leahy (born March 31, 1940),
Russell Feingold (born March 2, 1953),
A letter sent to(Democrat) Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle containing anthrax powder killed two postal workers
Location
New York City, New York, Boca Raton, Florida and Washington, D.C.
Target(s)
ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, New York Post, National Enquirer, Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy
Date letters postmarked September 18, 2001 and October 9, 2001; some were opened at a later date
Attack Type
bioterrorism
Fatalities
5
Injuries
17 infected
Perpetrator(s)
unknown
Motive
unknown
Robert F. Kennedy (November 20, 1925 – June 6, 1968)
Martin Luther King, Jr. (January 15, 1929 – April 4, 1968),
Thomas Hale Boggs, Sr. (February 15, 1914 – October 16, 1972),
Mel Carnahan (February 11, 1934 – October 16, 2000),
Paul Wellstone (July 21, 1944 – October 25, 2002),
John Fitzgerald Kennedy Jr. (November 25, 1960 – July 16, 1999),
Patrick Leahy (born March 31, 1940),
Russell Feingold (born March 2, 1953),
A letter sent to(Democrat) Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle containing anthrax powder killed two postal workers
Location
New York City, New York, Boca Raton, Florida and Washington, D.C.
Target(s)
ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, New York Post, National Enquirer, Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy
Date letters postmarked September 18, 2001 and October 9, 2001; some were opened at a later date
Attack Type
bioterrorism
Fatalities
5
Injuries
17 infected
Perpetrator(s)
unknown
Motive
unknown
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
The World Can Halt Bush’s Crimes By Dumping the Dollar
By Paul Craig Roberts
What would be the consequences of a US or Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear energy sites?
0212/07 "ICH" -- -- At the 2006 Perdana Global Peace Forum, Australian medical scientist Dr. Helen Caldicott provided an authoritative analysis: [VIDEO] of the devastating impact on human life that would result from the radiation release from such an attack.
Dr. Caldicott described the catastrophic deaths that would result from a conventional attack on nuclear facilities and the long-term increase in cancer deaths from the radiation release.
Should the attack be made with nuclear weapons--as some of Bush’s criminally insane neoconservative advisers advocate--the populations of many countries would suffer for generations from radioactive particles in air, water, and food chains. Deaths would number in the many millions.
Such an attack justified in the name of “American security” and “American hegemony” would constitute the rawest form of evil the world has ever seen, far surpassing in evil the atrocities of the Nazi and Communist regimes.
Dr. Caldicott detailed the horrible long-term consequences for the Iraqi population from the US military’s current use of depleted uranium in explosive ammunition used in Iraq. Caldicott explained that “depleted” does not mean depleted of radiation. She explained that each time such ammunition is used, radioactive particles are released in the air and are absorbed into people’s lungs. We are yet to see the horrific civilian casualty rate of the American invasion--or the true casualty rate among US troops.
Dr. Caldicott expressed bewilderment why the rest of the world does not stand up to the US and force a halt to its crimes against humanity.
One man heard her--Vladimir Putin, President of Russia.
On February 10 at the 43rd Munich Security Conference, President Putin told the world’s assembled political leaders that the US was trying to establish a “uni-polar world,” which he defined as “one single center of power, one single center of force and one single master.”
This goal, Putin said, was a “formula for disaster.”
“The United States,” Putin said, truthfully, “has overstepped its borders in all spheres” and “has imposed itself on other states.”
The Russian leader declared: “We see no kind of restraint--a hyper-inflated use of force.”
To avoid catastrophe, Putin said a reconsideration of the entire existing architecture of global security was necessary.
Putin’s words of truth fell on many deaf ears. US Senator John McCain, America’s most idiotic and dangerous “leader” after Bush and Cheney, equated Putin’s legitimate criticism of the US with “confrontation.”
America’s new puppets--the states of central and Eastern Europe and the secretary general of NATO, no longer a treaty for the defense of Europe but a military force enlisted in America’s quest for empire--lined up with McCain’s argument that Russia was in fundamental conflict “with the core values of Euro-Atlantic democracies.”
Even the BBC’s defense and security correspondent, Rob Watson, jumped on the American propaganda bandwagon, tagging Putin’s speech a revival of the cold war.
No delegate at the security conference stood up to state the obvious fact that it is not Russia that is invading countries under pretexts as false as Hitler’s and setting up weapons systems on foreign soil in order to achieve military hegemony.
The reception given to Putin’s words made it clear to Russia, China, and every country not bribed, threatened or purchased into participation in America’s drive for world hegemony that the US has no interest whatsoever in peace. Intelligent people realize that American claims to be a moral and democratic force are mere pretense behind which hides a policy of military aggression.
The US, Putin said, has gone “from one conflict to another without achieving a fully-fledged solution to any of them.”
Putin has repeatedly stressed Russia’s peaceful intentions and desire to focus on its economy and to avoid a new arms race. In his speech on the 60th anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany, Putin said: “I am convinced that there is no alternative to our friendship and our fraternity. With our closest neighbors and all countries of the world, Russia is prepared to build a kind of relationship which is not only based on lessons of the past but is also directed into a shared future.”
In his 2006 state of the nation speech, Putin noted that America’s military budget is 25 times larger than Russia’s. He compared the Bush Regime to a wolf who eats whom he wants without listening. Putin is being demonized by US propagandists, because he insists upon Russia being a politically and economically independent state.
The Bush Regime has taken the US outside the boundaries of international law and is acting unilaterally, falsely declaring American military aggression to be “defensive” and in the interests of peace. Much of the world realizes the hypocrisy and danger in the Bush Regime’s justification of the unbridled use of US military power, but no countries except other nuclear powers can challenge American aggression, and then only at the risk of all life on earth.
The solution is nonmilitary challenge.
The Bush Regime’s ability to wage war is dependent upon foreign financing. The Regime’s wars are financed with red ink, which means the hundreds of billions of dollars must be borrowed. As American consumers are spending more than they earn on consumption, the money cannot be borrowed from Americans.
The US is totally dependent upon foreigners to finance its budget and trade deficits. By financing these deficits, foreign governments are complicit in the Bush Regime’s military aggressions and war crimes. The Bush Regime’s two largest lenders are China and Japan. It is ironic that Japan, the only nation to experience nuclear attack by the US, is banker to the Bush Regime as it prepares a possible nuclear attack on Iran.
If the rest of the world would simply stop purchasing US Treasuries, and instead dump their surplus dollars into the foreign exchange market, the Bush Regime would be overwhelmed with economic crisis and unable to wage war. The arrogant hubris associated with the “sole superpower” myth would burst like the bubble it is.
The collapse of the dollar would also end the US government’s ability to subvert other countries by purchasing their leaders to do America’s will.
The demise of the US dollar is only a question of time. It would save the world from war and devastation if the dollar is brought to its demise before the Bush Regime launches its planned attack on Iran.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Democrats In airlanes has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Democrats In airplanes endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
What would be the consequences of a US or Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear energy sites?
0212/07 "ICH" -- -- At the 2006 Perdana Global Peace Forum, Australian medical scientist Dr. Helen Caldicott provided an authoritative analysis: [VIDEO] of the devastating impact on human life that would result from the radiation release from such an attack.
Dr. Caldicott described the catastrophic deaths that would result from a conventional attack on nuclear facilities and the long-term increase in cancer deaths from the radiation release.
Should the attack be made with nuclear weapons--as some of Bush’s criminally insane neoconservative advisers advocate--the populations of many countries would suffer for generations from radioactive particles in air, water, and food chains. Deaths would number in the many millions.
Such an attack justified in the name of “American security” and “American hegemony” would constitute the rawest form of evil the world has ever seen, far surpassing in evil the atrocities of the Nazi and Communist regimes.
Dr. Caldicott detailed the horrible long-term consequences for the Iraqi population from the US military’s current use of depleted uranium in explosive ammunition used in Iraq. Caldicott explained that “depleted” does not mean depleted of radiation. She explained that each time such ammunition is used, radioactive particles are released in the air and are absorbed into people’s lungs. We are yet to see the horrific civilian casualty rate of the American invasion--or the true casualty rate among US troops.
Dr. Caldicott expressed bewilderment why the rest of the world does not stand up to the US and force a halt to its crimes against humanity.
One man heard her--Vladimir Putin, President of Russia.
On February 10 at the 43rd Munich Security Conference, President Putin told the world’s assembled political leaders that the US was trying to establish a “uni-polar world,” which he defined as “one single center of power, one single center of force and one single master.”
This goal, Putin said, was a “formula for disaster.”
“The United States,” Putin said, truthfully, “has overstepped its borders in all spheres” and “has imposed itself on other states.”
The Russian leader declared: “We see no kind of restraint--a hyper-inflated use of force.”
To avoid catastrophe, Putin said a reconsideration of the entire existing architecture of global security was necessary.
Putin’s words of truth fell on many deaf ears. US Senator John McCain, America’s most idiotic and dangerous “leader” after Bush and Cheney, equated Putin’s legitimate criticism of the US with “confrontation.”
America’s new puppets--the states of central and Eastern Europe and the secretary general of NATO, no longer a treaty for the defense of Europe but a military force enlisted in America’s quest for empire--lined up with McCain’s argument that Russia was in fundamental conflict “with the core values of Euro-Atlantic democracies.”
Even the BBC’s defense and security correspondent, Rob Watson, jumped on the American propaganda bandwagon, tagging Putin’s speech a revival of the cold war.
No delegate at the security conference stood up to state the obvious fact that it is not Russia that is invading countries under pretexts as false as Hitler’s and setting up weapons systems on foreign soil in order to achieve military hegemony.
The reception given to Putin’s words made it clear to Russia, China, and every country not bribed, threatened or purchased into participation in America’s drive for world hegemony that the US has no interest whatsoever in peace. Intelligent people realize that American claims to be a moral and democratic force are mere pretense behind which hides a policy of military aggression.
The US, Putin said, has gone “from one conflict to another without achieving a fully-fledged solution to any of them.”
Putin has repeatedly stressed Russia’s peaceful intentions and desire to focus on its economy and to avoid a new arms race. In his speech on the 60th anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany, Putin said: “I am convinced that there is no alternative to our friendship and our fraternity. With our closest neighbors and all countries of the world, Russia is prepared to build a kind of relationship which is not only based on lessons of the past but is also directed into a shared future.”
In his 2006 state of the nation speech, Putin noted that America’s military budget is 25 times larger than Russia’s. He compared the Bush Regime to a wolf who eats whom he wants without listening. Putin is being demonized by US propagandists, because he insists upon Russia being a politically and economically independent state.
The Bush Regime has taken the US outside the boundaries of international law and is acting unilaterally, falsely declaring American military aggression to be “defensive” and in the interests of peace. Much of the world realizes the hypocrisy and danger in the Bush Regime’s justification of the unbridled use of US military power, but no countries except other nuclear powers can challenge American aggression, and then only at the risk of all life on earth.
The solution is nonmilitary challenge.
The Bush Regime’s ability to wage war is dependent upon foreign financing. The Regime’s wars are financed with red ink, which means the hundreds of billions of dollars must be borrowed. As American consumers are spending more than they earn on consumption, the money cannot be borrowed from Americans.
The US is totally dependent upon foreigners to finance its budget and trade deficits. By financing these deficits, foreign governments are complicit in the Bush Regime’s military aggressions and war crimes. The Bush Regime’s two largest lenders are China and Japan. It is ironic that Japan, the only nation to experience nuclear attack by the US, is banker to the Bush Regime as it prepares a possible nuclear attack on Iran.
If the rest of the world would simply stop purchasing US Treasuries, and instead dump their surplus dollars into the foreign exchange market, the Bush Regime would be overwhelmed with economic crisis and unable to wage war. The arrogant hubris associated with the “sole superpower” myth would burst like the bubble it is.
The collapse of the dollar would also end the US government’s ability to subvert other countries by purchasing their leaders to do America’s will.
The demise of the US dollar is only a question of time. It would save the world from war and devastation if the dollar is brought to its demise before the Bush Regime launches its planned attack on Iran.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Democrats In airlanes has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Democrats In airplanes endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
