(thanks to John for drawing my attention to this article - VS)
by Nil Nikandrov for the Strategic Culture Foundation
“N”, a correspondent from an Iranian media agency, whom I met in the association of foreign journalists in Caracas, told me that he used to work in Buenos Aires for some time. Things were going well, N's employer was satisfied with the job he did, and he planned to spend a few more years in Argentine, but eventually had to change his plans. After a while “N” noticed that he was under surveillance and that his mail regularly got stolen. Uninvited guests started to frequent his office. He talked to the local police and counterintelligence service, but both replied they had nothing to do with the problem. They did mention to “N” cautiously that he was in the sphere of interests of «the Zionists». He told me: «The people in my agency in Tehran knew that Iranian citizens often encounter such problems and concluded that the Mossad was planning a provocation against me. This is why I relocated to Venezuela. It is a country friendly to Iran, one enjoys a certain level of security guarantees here and can expect to be protected in case of need».
I had a similar conversation with “F”, a journalist from Syria. He told me frankly that he preferred to stay on the alert even in Venezuela because the Israeli intelligence service watches over all Syrians working in Latin America and often attempts to compromise them. Like most of his countrymen, “F” believes that hostile acts by the Mossad — drugs put in his pocket, allegations of links to Arab terrorists, the emergence of «documentary evidence» of connections to Columbian guerrillas — are likely. “F” said: «I am ready to face whatever happens. I'm not paranoid, I just look at things realistically. I even obtained a gun permit» and showed me a gun he wore under his jacket.
The Mossads's objectives are listed on its official web site. They include secret collection of operative, political, and strategic information abroad, termination of terrorist activity targeting Israeli and other Jewish installations, prevention of development or acquisition of nuclear weapons by countries hostile to Israel, and covert operations abroad. The January, 2010 killing by the Mossad of the leader of the the paramilitary wing of Hamas Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in a Dubai hotel gives an idea of what the term «covert operations abroad» refers to.
A Mossad hit squad of 11 agents disguised as tourists blocked the corridor leading to the hotel room where al-Mabhouh stayed. Then the Israeli hitmen got inside, electroshocked and strangulated the man. In several hours the Mossad agents left the Emirates with fake British, Canadian, Irish, and Australian passports.
The demonstrative character of the act was supposed to highlight the Mossad's capability to score with the enemies of Israel in any part of the world. The operation drew extensive coverage in Latin American media, most of which published the photos of the Mossad agents and, of course, that of their chief - the 64 year old Meir Dagan who has long deserved the nickname of «a man with a knife between his teeth». Among other operations, hundreds of killings of Iranian and Iraqi scientists who were involved in military-related research and were regarded as potentially dangerous to Israel are tracked to Dagan.
According to ALAI (Latin America Information Agency), the Mossad is using at least 40 Israeli companies (as well as embassies and other official institutions of the state of Israel) as fronts for its activity. The total number of the Mossad operatives in Latin America is not greater than 100-110, but an extensive network of agents and the cooperation with Jewish organizations and communities ensure the Mossad's presence across Latin America and the Caribbean.
The Mossad's interests gravitate to the regions south of the Rio Grande which are densely populated by Arab immigrants. The Mossad analysts believe that the epicenter of the potential «Muslim terrorism» in Latin America is located in the Zone of Three Borders between Paraguay, Argentina, and Brazil. Venezuela's Isla Margarita, a place where Lebanese and Syrian immigrants hunting for pearls started to settle down in the early XX century, is viewed similarly. When a free trade zone was opened on Margarita Island, the Arab populations switched to selling shoes, textile, and bijouterie. The Venezuelan government was a number of times forced to disprove allegations that Chavez hosts Muslim terrorists. In reality, Margarita is a small island where more or less everybody knows everybody else and no secret activity — least the operation of Hezbollah training camps — is possible.
Over the years of spying on the above «terrorist centers» Mossad never discovered the networks that could present a threat to Israel. Nevertheless, the Mossad's efforts were not wasted, at least since the Israeli «reliable» data were invariably used by Washington in planning its struggle against terrorism in Latin America. This is the mechanism of ideological support for the establishment of increasing numbers of US military bases on the continent in the proximity of the Latin American countries with «populist» regimes.
In many cases, Israeli intelligence operatives are involved in legal arms trade business which they use to gain connections in local military circles and security services.
The Mossad also uses affiliated companies to advise its Latin American colleagues on fighting terrorism, «leftist extremism», guerrilla groups and their support networks, as well as to help intelligence services modernize their technical base. A company most often mentioned in the context is Israel's Global CST, whose CEOs are retired high-ranking Mossad operatives. In July, 2009 the Peruvian government hired the company to help reorganize the country's intelligence community in order to boost the efficiency of its struggle against «subversive and terrorist organizations» including the re-emerging Sendero Luminoso Maoist group. Global CST is also helping the Peruvian government create a joint system of control over mobile communications, Internet, and other communications media.
Global CST has grown notably more active in Columbia. The Israeli company familiarizes the country's military intelligence and political police (DAS) officers with new techniques in the spheres of anti-terrorist activity and espionage. Over recent years, Columbia's intelligence services have been increasingly assertive outside the country, evidently imitating the modus operandi of their CIA and Mossad peers. Columbia maintains intelligence networks in Brazil, Ecuador, Mexico, Panama, and other Latin American countries. The FARC and ELN envoys are finding themselves under permanent surveillance, routinely kidnapped and sometimes — assassinated.
International Security Agency (ISA) mainly staffed by former Israeli special forces officers and intelligence operatives is also active in Latin America. The agency (in tight cooperation with the CIA and the Mossad) took part in the coup that displaced M. Zelaya, the legitimate President of Honduras. Currently ISA specialists are working in the security service of the current President of Honduras P. Lobo, who was propelled to presidency as the result of an imitation of free elections like those Washington realized in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There is a consensus among experts that the Mossad's number one adversary and target in Latin America is Hugo Chavez, the political leader condemning Israel's attempts to resolve conflicts in the Middle East by force. Chavez suspended Venezuela's diplomatic relations with Israel in August, 2006, following the Israeli aggression against Lebanon. At that time Israeli Ambassador Shlomo Cohen and the embassy staff (mostly Mossad operatives) left Caracas. In several months Chavez took steps to normalize the relations with Israel, largely in response to the requests made by Venezuela's 12,000 Jewish community.
The diplomatic relations between Venezuela and Israel were severed again in January, 2009 when the former protested the crimes committed by the Israeli army in the Gaza Strip, where the Israeli operation resulted in the killing of over 1,000 Palestinians, a third of them — children. In a televised address, Chavez criticized Israel as a country guilty of genocide and inhumane persecution of Palestinians. Not surprisingly, Israel's reaction was negative. In November, 2009 Shimon Peres addressed a thinly veiled threat to Chavez by saying that «Chavez will soon disappear». The Venezuelan leader remarked that Perez had to undertake a long journey to Latin America to say the words and wondered publicly what would have happened if similar words were said about Peres in Venezuela.
TV commentator and former Venezuelan Vice President José Vicente Rangel often warns in his TV show that the Mossad is planning to assassinate Chavez. Agents with the corresponding qualifications were sent to Columbia, Peru, the Dominican Republic, Panama, and Curacao Island. In Rangel's view, the greatest threat emanates from Columbia as DAS — instigated by the CIA — already conspired quite a few times to kill Chavez. Alarming comments were also made by US journalist Eva Hollinger who is a renown expert in operations against Venezuela. Author of CIA in Venezuela Hose Sant Ross calls the Venezuelan authorities to be mindful of the Mossad's operations in the country.
As a rule, the efforts of Venezuelan security services to identify the Mossad agents echo with carefully orchestrated protests staged by the country's Jewish community and with «solidarity» campaigns across Latin America. Media synchronously respond by charging Chavez with antisemitism and collusion with Muslim extremism.
Actually, the theme of antisemitism recurs due to a range of causes, for example whenever the Venezuelan government takes measures to scrutinize the country's financial sphere. For decades, there used to be a number of jewelry stores in La Francia building in downtown Caracas, not far from the Venezuelan Foreign ministry, where gold and jewelry were bought and sold with practically no fiscal control. The administration's attempts to make the business take legal shape and to subject the accounting documents of the stores to the long-overdue audit were condemned by the opposition media as persecution of Jewish businessmen. Nevertheless, the announcement of the coming audit had an explosive effect: in a matter of hours La Francia building was completely abandoned. The most valuable stuff was evacuated secretly at night.
Venezuelan counterintelligence agents watched the process from a distance, occasionally taking pictures. They did not expect to learn anything new — it was known that the Mossad used La Francia to carry out its financial transactions.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Pirate-captured tanker freed by Russian navy
RT reports:
The crew of a large Russian anti-submarine ship has freed an oil tanker seized by Somali pirates on Wednesday. All 23 Russian sailors from the hijacked vessel have escaped the incident unscathed.
As a result of the rescue efforts, 10 pirates have been captured and one killed.
"The large submarine-hunter ‘Marshal Shaposhnikov’ (see photos - click on picture for high resolution) of Russia's Pacific Navy carried out an operation to free the ‘Moscow University’ tanker. It ended with an assault by marines; Russia regained control of the tanker and set free all 23 crewmembers; none of them was hurt. 10 pirates have been detained. Several pirates have been wounded and one has been killed," reported Vladimir Markin, spokesman for the Investigations Committee of the Russian Prosecutor General's Office.
According to Markin, all those detained will be brought to Moscow for questioning.
The arrested attackers will be dealt with in accordance with “naval law,” President Medvedev said while discussing the events with Defense Minister Serdyukov.
After the vague comment on the fate of the pirates, Medvedev announced that Russia’s Foreign Ministry will work on an international initiative to create a legal framework for combating piracy, probably establishing an international court for such issues.
“What’s the problem here? We all know that it’s evil, but fail to agree on how to fight it. The result is the bad situation in terms of legal and political instruments,” the Russian president said. He added that without such an agreement seafaring nations will “have to deal with pirates the way our ancestors did.”
The tanker “Moscow University”, with 23 crew members and 86,000 tonnes of oil on board, was seized on Wednesday morning to the east of Aden Bay. The boat was going from the Red Sea to China.
"Due to wise steps taken by the captain of the tanker and his crew, all 23 sailors hid in a special room inaccessible to the pirates. As a result, the pirates failed to take any crew members hostage," the vessel's owner, Novorossiysk Shipping Company (Novoship), told Interfax.
The Russian navy was aided by EU and NATO warships engaged in anti-pirate missions in the region.
Itar-Tass quotes the Operation Atalanta press-service as saying “an aircraft from patrol aviation of EU Navfor managed to contact the ‘Moscow University’ crew several hours after the attack on the ship. This helped to confirm the crew was safe.”
According to a source in Russia’s Ministry of Defense, cited by Itar-Tass, the crew of the Marshal Shaposhnikov gave the pirates a chance to surrender. However, they were forced to storm the vessel.
As EU Navfor reports “The Marshal Shaposhnikov sent a helicopter to investigate upon arrival at the oil tanker Moscow University’s position. The helicopter was fired upon by the pirates holding the ship. The Russian warship, knowing the crew were locked down and safe, returned fire on the pirates.”
The crew of a large Russian anti-submarine ship has freed an oil tanker seized by Somali pirates on Wednesday. All 23 Russian sailors from the hijacked vessel have escaped the incident unscathed.
As a result of the rescue efforts, 10 pirates have been captured and one killed.
"The large submarine-hunter ‘Marshal Shaposhnikov’ (see photos - click on picture for high resolution) of Russia's Pacific Navy carried out an operation to free the ‘Moscow University’ tanker. It ended with an assault by marines; Russia regained control of the tanker and set free all 23 crewmembers; none of them was hurt. 10 pirates have been detained. Several pirates have been wounded and one has been killed," reported Vladimir Markin, spokesman for the Investigations Committee of the Russian Prosecutor General's Office.According to Markin, all those detained will be brought to Moscow for questioning.
The arrested attackers will be dealt with in accordance with “naval law,” President Medvedev said while discussing the events with Defense Minister Serdyukov.
After the vague comment on the fate of the pirates, Medvedev announced that Russia’s Foreign Ministry will work on an international initiative to create a legal framework for combating piracy, probably establishing an international court for such issues.
“What’s the problem here? We all know that it’s evil, but fail to agree on how to fight it. The result is the bad situation in terms of legal and political instruments,” the Russian president said. He added that without such an agreement seafaring nations will “have to deal with pirates the way our ancestors did.”
The tanker “Moscow University”, with 23 crew members and 86,000 tonnes of oil on board, was seized on Wednesday morning to the east of Aden Bay. The boat was going from the Red Sea to China.
"Due to wise steps taken by the captain of the tanker and his crew, all 23 sailors hid in a special room inaccessible to the pirates. As a result, the pirates failed to take any crew members hostage," the vessel's owner, Novorossiysk Shipping Company (Novoship), told Interfax.
The Russian navy was aided by EU and NATO warships engaged in anti-pirate missions in the region.
Itar-Tass quotes the Operation Atalanta press-service as saying “an aircraft from patrol aviation of EU Navfor managed to contact the ‘Moscow University’ crew several hours after the attack on the ship. This helped to confirm the crew was safe.”
According to a source in Russia’s Ministry of Defense, cited by Itar-Tass, the crew of the Marshal Shaposhnikov gave the pirates a chance to surrender. However, they were forced to storm the vessel.
As EU Navfor reports “The Marshal Shaposhnikov sent a helicopter to investigate upon arrival at the oil tanker Moscow University’s position. The helicopter was fired upon by the pirates holding the ship. The Russian warship, knowing the crew were locked down and safe, returned fire on the pirates.”
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Zionist corporate media in high gear
Their latest invention?
Osama Bin-Ladin is comfortably living in Iran...
All we need now if a retouched image of Imam Khamenei with a Hitler moustache and the war can start.
Sickening.
Osama Bin-Ladin is comfortably living in Iran...
All we need now if a retouched image of Imam Khamenei with a Hitler moustache and the war can start.
Sickening.
Joe Lieberman goes after "enemy goyims"
Kasie Hunt for the Politico reports:
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) thinks he’s found a work-around on the whole Miranda rights debate for U.S. citizens accused of terrorism: Strip their citizenship and ship them to Guantanamo. Lieberman plans to introduce a bill that would amend a decades-old law aimed at yanking citizenship from U.S. citizens who fight for a foreign military.
“I’m now putting together legislation to amend that to [specify that] any individual American citizen who is found to be involved in a foreign terrorist organization, as defined by the Department of State, would be deprived of their citizenship rights,” Lieberman said Tuesday. Such a law would potentially cover terror suspect Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani-born American citizen charged in connection with the attempted car bombing in New York City’s Times Square. He was apprehended Monday night at the city’s John F. Kennedy airport after he boarded a flight to Dubai.
“If you have joined an enemy of the United States in attacking the United States and trying to kill Americans, I think you sacrifice your rights of citizenship,” Lieberman said.
There is one exception to the existing law: Americans are allowed to serve in the Israel Defense Forces without losing their citizenship.
At a press conference Tuesday, Attorney General Eric Holder said Shahzad was questioned without a Miranda warning under the so-called public safety exception but was later read his rights and continued to speak with investigators. In a civilian trial, a judge can toss out evidence taken from a suspect who has not been read Miranda rights. The incident is the most serious terrorism attempt in this country since Christmas Day, when Umar FaroukAbdulmutallab is accused of trying to detonate a bomb aboard a Northwest Airlines flight. Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian national, was read his Miranda rights, sparking an outcry from Republicans — who argued he should have been interrogated as an enemy combatant.
Lieberman said he believes the administration should have used the recently created High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group in those interrogations.
“My feeling is that if they [HIG] make a judgment that this was a terrorist act, the person should be turned over to the military,” Lieberman said.
That’s not allowed under current law if the suspect is an American citizen, because U.S. citizens cannot be tried in military commissions. The 2006 law that outlines guidelines for the commissions authorizes them only for “alien unprivileged enemy belligerent[s].”
-------
Commentary: Joe Lieberman. Along with Rahm Emanuel, Alan Dershowitz, Elie Wiesel, Michael Chertoff or Henry Kissinger, he comes across like a living Nazi caricature of the "evil Jew". Somebody who is so patently evil, arrogant and repulsive that you almost involuntarily feel a desire to toss a brick in his face. Looking at these folks, I always wonder whether they are (maybe un-)consciously trying to fit the Nazi stereotype in both their appearance, their demeanor and their politics. I have to admit that no explanation for this. It baffles me, but I can't make sense of it.
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) thinks he’s found a work-around on the whole Miranda rights debate for U.S. citizens accused of terrorism: Strip their citizenship and ship them to Guantanamo. Lieberman plans to introduce a bill that would amend a decades-old law aimed at yanking citizenship from U.S. citizens who fight for a foreign military.
“I’m now putting together legislation to amend that to [specify that] any individual American citizen who is found to be involved in a foreign terrorist organization, as defined by the Department of State, would be deprived of their citizenship rights,” Lieberman said Tuesday. Such a law would potentially cover terror suspect Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani-born American citizen charged in connection with the attempted car bombing in New York City’s Times Square. He was apprehended Monday night at the city’s John F. Kennedy airport after he boarded a flight to Dubai.
“If you have joined an enemy of the United States in attacking the United States and trying to kill Americans, I think you sacrifice your rights of citizenship,” Lieberman said.
There is one exception to the existing law: Americans are allowed to serve in the Israel Defense Forces without losing their citizenship.
At a press conference Tuesday, Attorney General Eric Holder said Shahzad was questioned without a Miranda warning under the so-called public safety exception but was later read his rights and continued to speak with investigators. In a civilian trial, a judge can toss out evidence taken from a suspect who has not been read Miranda rights. The incident is the most serious terrorism attempt in this country since Christmas Day, when Umar FaroukAbdulmutallab is accused of trying to detonate a bomb aboard a Northwest Airlines flight. Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian national, was read his Miranda rights, sparking an outcry from Republicans — who argued he should have been interrogated as an enemy combatant.
Lieberman said he believes the administration should have used the recently created High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group in those interrogations.
“My feeling is that if they [HIG] make a judgment that this was a terrorist act, the person should be turned over to the military,” Lieberman said.
That’s not allowed under current law if the suspect is an American citizen, because U.S. citizens cannot be tried in military commissions. The 2006 law that outlines guidelines for the commissions authorizes them only for “alien unprivileged enemy belligerent[s].”
-------
Commentary: Joe Lieberman. Along with Rahm Emanuel, Alan Dershowitz, Elie Wiesel, Michael Chertoff or Henry Kissinger, he comes across like a living Nazi caricature of the "evil Jew". Somebody who is so patently evil, arrogant and repulsive that you almost involuntarily feel a desire to toss a brick in his face. Looking at these folks, I always wonder whether they are (maybe un-)consciously trying to fit the Nazi stereotype in both their appearance, their demeanor and their politics. I have to admit that no explanation for this. It baffles me, but I can't make sense of it.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Listening to Eric Prince - musings about US SOF and the Empire
Jeremy Scahill, the award-winning independent journalist and the author of the international bestseller, “Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army" has just published an article on his blog at The Nation entitled "Secret Erik Prince Tape Exposed". Scahill was also interviewed today on Democracy Now. Check out the article and the interview, interesting stuff.
Here is, however, the one quote by Prince which is really priceless:
"These people, they crawled out of the sewer and they have a 1200 AD mentality. They’re barbarians. They don’t even know where Geneva is, let alone that there was a convention there"
This short sentence crystallizes all the key features of the American imperial warrior.
"These people": Eric Prince is too ignorant to realize that there are many very different people, with different histories, different cultures, different languages, different religions and different traditions in Iraq, in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. I bet you that Prince speaks no local language and that he thinks of "these people" as "sand niggers", "hadjis", "ragheads", etc.
"They crawled out of the sewer": clearly, he thinks of "them" as something akin to rats, cockroaches, or maybe maggots: an infestation, a nuisance, a pest to be exterminated, but not as "real" human beings. This is the kind of mentality which has supported every single genocide the USA has committed in its blood-soaked history.
"They have a 1200 AD mentality". Another great statement. Prince clearly has no idea whatsoever about the 13th century, in particular not about where Europe at that time stood, especially when compared to the Middle-East. He simply cannot envision that the culture of Iraq or Pakistan in the 13th century was way more sophisticated and civilized that the mentality (one can hardly call it a 'culture') of today's USA. He also get's his time-reference wrong. Iraq and Pakistan are both top contenders for the honor of being the first civilization on he face of the earth. Iraq with its Sumerian civilization and Pakistan with its possibly even older Indus-Saraswati civilization near the modern Moheno-Daro ruins in what is today Sindh region of Pakistan. Both civilization can be roughly placed around 2500-3000 BC and there is some evidence that the Vedas might be as old as 12'000 BC! But how could an arrogant American mercenary whose idea of "ancient history" probably does not stretch further back than the US Civil War and whose country recently celebrated its bi-centennial wrap his brain around such figures?!
"They don’t even know where Geneva is". Since I spend most of my life in Geneva, I can vouch for the following: most Americans do not know where Geneva is, while most people I met in South America, Africa, Asia and the Middle-East did.
"There was a convention there". Of course, no "convention" was organized there. Four legal instruments called "Geneva Conventions" (and several Additional Protocols) were adopted under that name in reference to the work of Henri Dunant and the Red Cross. Eric Prince probably thinks that the word "convention" refers to a big conference, some event, rather than a legal document.
The interesting thing here is that Eric Prince was a USN Seal. I have always had a very bad opinion of US special operations forces and if one puts aside the Hollywood type propaganda about "the most elite for on the planet", their actual record ranges from the mediocre to the outright pathetic (think Grenada here). One could wonder why that is the case? The US special forces are very well equipped and supported, their training is costly and advanced, yet their performance is lackluster at best. Eric Prince and his Blackwater goons are a perfect illustration of why: its their mentality/mindset which is so inadequate for their mission.
Compare these US "Rambos" with French, British or Russian special forces. While the former are all about "killing sand niggers" and firepower, the latter typically very rapidly "turn native". They speak the language, make local friends, adopt local customs and, by and large, try to blend in with their environment. Often, they are fluent in several local languages and have one or two college degrees back home. They also have a great deal of respect for the capabilities of the local fighters. Most importantly, effective special operators do not feel the type of hostile condescending disdain which seeps through every word Eric Prince spoke that day.
What is at the very core of the imperial mindset - in any empire - and which is further concentrated in the US military in general, and the special operations forces in particular, is this deep-seated racism, a sense of innate superiority and a complete inability to relate to other people and cultures. That is one of the biggest achilles heel of the entire US military. No matter where it goes, it ends up being hated and rejected because it always comes in with a racist mindset. Eric Prince and his Blackwater goons are just a perfect illustration of a much more widespread US imperial mindset.
The Saker
Here is, however, the one quote by Prince which is really priceless:
"These people, they crawled out of the sewer and they have a 1200 AD mentality. They’re barbarians. They don’t even know where Geneva is, let alone that there was a convention there"
This short sentence crystallizes all the key features of the American imperial warrior.
"These people": Eric Prince is too ignorant to realize that there are many very different people, with different histories, different cultures, different languages, different religions and different traditions in Iraq, in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. I bet you that Prince speaks no local language and that he thinks of "these people" as "sand niggers", "hadjis", "ragheads", etc."They crawled out of the sewer": clearly, he thinks of "them" as something akin to rats, cockroaches, or maybe maggots: an infestation, a nuisance, a pest to be exterminated, but not as "real" human beings. This is the kind of mentality which has supported every single genocide the USA has committed in its blood-soaked history.
"They have a 1200 AD mentality". Another great statement. Prince clearly has no idea whatsoever about the 13th century, in particular not about where Europe at that time stood, especially when compared to the Middle-East. He simply cannot envision that the culture of Iraq or Pakistan in the 13th century was way more sophisticated and civilized that the mentality (one can hardly call it a 'culture') of today's USA. He also get's his time-reference wrong. Iraq and Pakistan are both top contenders for the honor of being the first civilization on he face of the earth. Iraq with its Sumerian civilization and Pakistan with its possibly even older Indus-Saraswati civilization near the modern Moheno-Daro ruins in what is today Sindh region of Pakistan. Both civilization can be roughly placed around 2500-3000 BC and there is some evidence that the Vedas might be as old as 12'000 BC! But how could an arrogant American mercenary whose idea of "ancient history" probably does not stretch further back than the US Civil War and whose country recently celebrated its bi-centennial wrap his brain around such figures?!
"They don’t even know where Geneva is". Since I spend most of my life in Geneva, I can vouch for the following: most Americans do not know where Geneva is, while most people I met in South America, Africa, Asia and the Middle-East did.
"There was a convention there". Of course, no "convention" was organized there. Four legal instruments called "Geneva Conventions" (and several Additional Protocols) were adopted under that name in reference to the work of Henri Dunant and the Red Cross. Eric Prince probably thinks that the word "convention" refers to a big conference, some event, rather than a legal document.
The interesting thing here is that Eric Prince was a USN Seal. I have always had a very bad opinion of US special operations forces and if one puts aside the Hollywood type propaganda about "the most elite for on the planet", their actual record ranges from the mediocre to the outright pathetic (think Grenada here). One could wonder why that is the case? The US special forces are very well equipped and supported, their training is costly and advanced, yet their performance is lackluster at best. Eric Prince and his Blackwater goons are a perfect illustration of why: its their mentality/mindset which is so inadequate for their mission.
Compare these US "Rambos" with French, British or Russian special forces. While the former are all about "killing sand niggers" and firepower, the latter typically very rapidly "turn native". They speak the language, make local friends, adopt local customs and, by and large, try to blend in with their environment. Often, they are fluent in several local languages and have one or two college degrees back home. They also have a great deal of respect for the capabilities of the local fighters. Most importantly, effective special operators do not feel the type of hostile condescending disdain which seeps through every word Eric Prince spoke that day.
What is at the very core of the imperial mindset - in any empire - and which is further concentrated in the US military in general, and the special operations forces in particular, is this deep-seated racism, a sense of innate superiority and a complete inability to relate to other people and cultures. That is one of the biggest achilles heel of the entire US military. No matter where it goes, it ends up being hated and rejected because it always comes in with a racist mindset. Eric Prince and his Blackwater goons are just a perfect illustration of a much more widespread US imperial mindset.
The Saker
Monday, May 3, 2010
"The Future of Palestine: Righteous Jews vs. the New Afrikaners"
A lecture by Professor John J. Mearsheimer
Contrary to the wishes of the Obama administration and most Americans – to include many American Jews – Israel is not going to allow the Palestinians to have a viable state of their own in Gaza and the West Bank. Regrettably, the two-state solution is now a fantasy.
"A Firefighter, A Demolition Expert, and an Architect Look at Ground-Zero"
My favorite radio show host (Bonnie Faulkner) host yet another highly interesting discussion on my favorite US radio station (KPFK 94.1 in San Francisco) in her weekly show Guns and Butter, this time with with firefighter and founder of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, Erik Lawyer; controlled demolition expert, Tom Sullivan; and architect and founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Richard Gage.
You can listen or download the show here:
I *highly* recommend this show as it shows how different professions are now coming together to debunk the government narrative about 9/11. Also, this show reflects the growing vitality of the 9/11 Truth movement.
Great stuff - don't miss it.
The Saker
You can listen or download the show here:
I *highly* recommend this show as it shows how different professions are now coming together to debunk the government narrative about 9/11. Also, this show reflects the growing vitality of the 9/11 Truth movement.
Great stuff - don't miss it.
The Saker
Freedom of the press - Obama style...
Press TV reports:
An Iranian press delegation slated to accompany President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during his upcoming visit to New York have been denied US visas.
The US government has refused to issue visas for the Iranian press delegation that was scheduled to cover the president's trip to New York and his participation in a nuclear conference, Mehr News Agency reported on Sunday.
Ahmadinejad, who is to attend the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference at the United Nations headquarters, left for New York on Sunday as the head of Iran's high-ranking delegation.
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, Senior Presidential Advisor Mojtaba Samareh Hashemi, Chief of staff Esfandyar Rahim-Mashae, and the Head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization Ali Akbar Salehi will accompany Ahmadinejad during the visit.
Ahmadinejad is scheduled to be the third speaker on Friday, coming after the opening statement by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and a representative from the Non-Aligned Movement.
The twice-a-decade conference aims to monitor the global progress in fulfilling disarmament obligations set out in the 40-year old treaty.
-------
Commentary: this is not only about freedom of the press, or about Obama's puppets being imperial Fascists. This is also about how absolutely mind-bogglingly *STUPID* and infantile US politicians are. Seriously - what have they achieved with this ban on visas for Iranian journalists?! It's not like this will prevent them from covering the event, and you can be darn sure that this idiotic decision of Uncle Shmuel will further increase the hate that most Iranians feel for the American political system (not its people, though). Will this decision affect Ahmadinejad himself? Of course not. The man is already quite used to a basic lack of diplomatic culture in the US and he expects no less. If anything, it will only strengthen his resolve. So it is rather clear that all this is a a pathetic, illiterate and infantile attempt by the "Israel first" crowd in the Department of State to "do something" against Iran. Well, I say let them. It only serves to illustrate their weakness and idiocy.
The Saker
An Iranian press delegation slated to accompany President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during his upcoming visit to New York have been denied US visas.
The US government has refused to issue visas for the Iranian press delegation that was scheduled to cover the president's trip to New York and his participation in a nuclear conference, Mehr News Agency reported on Sunday.
Ahmadinejad, who is to attend the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference at the United Nations headquarters, left for New York on Sunday as the head of Iran's high-ranking delegation.
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, Senior Presidential Advisor Mojtaba Samareh Hashemi, Chief of staff Esfandyar Rahim-Mashae, and the Head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization Ali Akbar Salehi will accompany Ahmadinejad during the visit.
Ahmadinejad is scheduled to be the third speaker on Friday, coming after the opening statement by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and a representative from the Non-Aligned Movement.
The twice-a-decade conference aims to monitor the global progress in fulfilling disarmament obligations set out in the 40-year old treaty.
-------
Commentary: this is not only about freedom of the press, or about Obama's puppets being imperial Fascists. This is also about how absolutely mind-bogglingly *STUPID* and infantile US politicians are. Seriously - what have they achieved with this ban on visas for Iranian journalists?! It's not like this will prevent them from covering the event, and you can be darn sure that this idiotic decision of Uncle Shmuel will further increase the hate that most Iranians feel for the American political system (not its people, though). Will this decision affect Ahmadinejad himself? Of course not. The man is already quite used to a basic lack of diplomatic culture in the US and he expects no less. If anything, it will only strengthen his resolve. So it is rather clear that all this is a a pathetic, illiterate and infantile attempt by the "Israel first" crowd in the Department of State to "do something" against Iran. Well, I say let them. It only serves to illustrate their weakness and idiocy.
The Saker
Testing the Limits of Freedom of Speech: Ernst Zundel Speaks Out
(thanks to L. for brining this article to my attention - VS)
An exclusive interview with one of Europe's most well-known political prisoners
by Kourosh Ziabari for Foreign Policy Journal
Ernst Zundel is a German author and historian who has spent seven years of his life behind bars as a result of expressing his controversial viewpoints and opinions. He is a revisionist who has denied the Holocaust as described by most historians. He has been one of the most prominent political prisoners in Europe and has been jailed in three countries on two continents.
After his arrest in the U.S. in 2003, he was deported to Canada, where he was kept in prison as “a threat to the national security” for two years. After deportation to Germany in March 2005, he was convicted and sentenced in 2007 to five additional years of imprisonment on charges of holocaust denial. He was finally released on March 1, 2010.
This is the first interview Ernst Zundel has given since his release.
Firstly, I would like to extend my congratulations on your recent release. Were you ever mistreated or subject to any type of mental or physical punishment in breach of international conventions?
My entire treatment these past seven years by those arresting me, trying and convicting me, and keeping me in prison has been in brutal breach of international conventions. I was arrested in broad daylight on American soil by officials of the U.S. government who acted as hit squads for a nefarious lobby. There was no arrest warrant. I was not read my rights. I was whisked away in handcuffs without being allowed to get my wallet, to call my attorney, to be allowed to make my case before an American Immigration Judge or even hug my wife goodbye.
I was incarcerated in six different prisons on two continents in three countries — the USA, Canada, and Germany — without relief of any kind. In effect, I have had 10 percent of my life stolen from me – and for what “crime”? For having “overstayed my U.S. visa”?
Throughout my imprisonment, basic human rights principles were trampled underfoot repeatedly and with impunity. The worst prisons were the Canadian detention centers at Thorold, Ontario and at Toronto West, where I was held for two long years in isolation cells, ice-cold in the winter, no shoes or socks allowed. The electric light in these cells, bright enough to be able to read, was kept on 24 hours a day. Through a glass slot in the door I was checked every 20 minutes, and my activities were meticulously noted by the guards: one sheet for every day. No dignity, no privacy. My toothbrush was kept in a plastic bin in a hall. I was not allowed to speak to other prisoners. Bed sheets were changed only after three months. No pillows. No chairs. When I wrote to my wife or to my attorneys, I had to sit on a makeshift pile of my court transcripts. No radio, no television, not even an electrical outlet to sharpen my pencils. No ball point pens, only pencil stubs, cut in half with a saw. No spoons, forks, or knives were permitted; only a white plastic spoon with a fork called a “spork” that had to be returned every time at the end of the meal. With very few exceptions when furtive guards showed me some kindness away from the surveillance cameras, I was treated as though I was the worst of criminals. That’s Canada for you, where I have lived and worked without a criminal record for more than 40 years.
It was somewhat better, but not much, in the United States. In Germany, it was quite a bit better in terms of the basic necessities, but personal mail was routinely withheld – 1,700 letters for up to five years – even after I forced a court to order that it be given to me. My so-called trial in Mannheim was a political show trial in the Stalinist mode in that my guilt was a foregone conclusion. I requested that exculpatory exhibits be allowed as validation for what I believed and had written and said. No meaningful defense was allowed. I could not put on record any forensic evidence, any historical documents, or even expert witnesses, That very request to be allowed to offer evidence was held to be a new offense of criminal behavior and could have resulted in new criminal charges – as were, in fact, lodged against my lawyers during that very trial who tried to overcome these restrictions.
Along with the rest of EU members, Germany regularly criticizes other countries for violations of free speech and human rights. However, your case demonstrated the emptiness of such claims within Europe. What’s your take on that? Is Europe really a utopia of liberty and freedom of speech?
Most European countries have only selected free speech for officially approved and sanctioned views on history. Almost all EU countries have laws in place that restrict freedom of speech under the guise of one fig leaf or other, such as the prevention of racist or neo-Nazi activities. The state decides selectively who is and what is racist. These laws are hypocritical, in Germany’s case superseding even their own Basic Law.
Dissidents are allowed very little opportunity to be read or heard in the mainstream corporate media channels of the West. The control mechanisms of the press are many, often subtle but widely understood and obeyed – fear of loss of jobs, diminished circulation, the withholding of government advertisements etc. There is no longer unrestricted freedom in any Western country, not even in the U.S. with its wonderful Constitution and Amendments such as the Bill of Rights.
Allow me here to point out to your readers the outline of a censorship practice known by its neutral term “rendition”, but more honestly defined as political kidnappings to force the silencing of dissident speech or alternate thoughts. Renditions in the West are ever more frequently practiced not only against alleged “terrorist suspects” but against ordinary political activists and writers whose viewpoints are frowned upon by such outfits as AIPAC and similar Zionist lobby and interest groups, B’nai Brith, the Canadian Jewish Congress etc.
In order to spell out what I can only describe to you in broad strokes, I’d like to briefly shed light on the period preceding my arrest in the U.S. and Canada, the conniving and the similarity in other cases like mine, where an innocuous or alleged infraction is used as a fig leaf to silence a political opponent.
Viet Dinh, a Georgetown University law professor and director of their Asian Law and Policy Studies Program who helped craft the Patriot Act, put it succinctly, as reported in an American publication called Wired that deals with freedom of speech on the net. That interview reads:
We had been notified in writing that this interview could take as long as three years, and that no status report would be given. We were patiently waiting for that last step, a routine interview with an immigration official. Our immigration attorney had requested such an interview in writing – twice! Under oath, he testified that he had written those letters. These letters have mysteriously disappeared from our immigration file. When I was arrested, it was claimed that I had negligently “missed a hearing” which gave them grounds for an arrest due to a visa overstay. In other words, a simple bureaucratic loophole was found or fabricated that has cost me seven years of my life.
What happened to me in the context of a deliberate state policy of deception has also happened to others. Similar ruses via false accusations were used in cases like Germar Rudolf, likefwise married to an American citizen, El Masri of Germany, Maher Arar of Canada, Gerd Honsik of Spain, Siegfried Verbeke of Belgium, David Irving, and now Bishop Williamson of England, to name only a few individuals who were caught between the grind stones of a criminal policy possible only under the Patriot Act in the U.S. and similar legal instruments in other countries. Embedded in that background of a widespread covert policy and practice to force political conformity, my case makes eminent sense. We are no longer dealing with an aberration. These extrajudicial renditions give 9/11 and the Patriot Act a new light as a global policy instrument of brutal censorship of unpopular thinkers and writers.
The thrust of a prestigious publication such as yours would normally deal with the policies of foreign governments, renditions, kidnappings, and incarcerations not only of foreign enemies but, as in the case of Vanunu, an Israeli-born- and-raised atomic scientist. He was no neo-Nazi, no racist, no Holocaust Denier, yet he was relentlessly pursued by the Mossad and ultimately kidnapped and jailed for 18 years.
The patterns of the breaking of international law and conventions, the use of false identities, and the brazen practice of breaking and entering by spy and intelligence agencies, etc. – these criminal activities are daily in the news. This sets the stage and makes my case a logical progression of an old, established policy, with this one difference: we are no longer talking about hunting and kidnapping alleged “Nazi war criminals” like Eichmann or stone-throwing Palestinians or even “Arab terrorists”, but instead the targeting of writers and other political dissidents in Western countries calling themselves “democracies”.
My story does not even end there. In my case, my “Holocaust Denier” profile was convenient, but passé. It was not even, as is so commonly and falsely claimed, “Denial of the Holocaust” or even more bizarre, my “visa overstay”! I was told what actually happened by a friend of ours with high-level UN connections. In his own words: “It was the Blue Booklet that did it! That’s when it was decided at the very highest level to take you out for good!”
Here is what happened, briefly: In the early months post-9/11 my wife, an avid Internetter, discovered a compelling research document entitled Stranger than Fiction: An Independent Investigation of 9/11 and the War on Terrorism by Anonymous, 11-11-2. She gave it to me over breakfast. I read it, found it interesting, and ran a few copies off on my printer for people on my mailing list. I did not write that lavishly footnoted paper. I did not research it. I merely copied it. Somebody must have concluded that I, with my background of thorough forensic investigations in other areas, showed more than ordinary interest in 9/11 as a potential political false flag common in intelligence agency operations!
During my trial in Mannheim, ostensibly for “Holocaust Denial”, portions of my monthly newsletter, where I mentioned this booklet and the 9/11 topic, were referenced by the prosecution as criminal offenses. Only after it became clear that I welcomed the opportunity to have my attorneys present forensic evidence of a potential 9/11 cover-up were those portions of the accusation against me hastily dropped, and my trial became a “Holocaust Denial” show trial in the traditional Stalinist mode, “… accuse wildly but don’t allow a defense!”
As we later found out through various freedom of information requests in various countries, there was in place for years a deliberate, convoluted plan to arrest and detain me under false pretenses so as to take me out and put me behind bars.
I mention this only as an overarching, logical example as to how diabolically clever my political opponents are in using the accusation of “Holocaust Denial” and persecution of Holocaust Revisionists as arrows in their arsenal of weaponry to shore up, consolidate, and protect their deceptively acquired power and influence.
What’s the reality behind Holocaust? Didn’t it happen at all? What about people such as Elie Wiesel, Thomas Blatt, Wladyslaw Bartoszewski and Leopold Engleitner who are Holocaust survivors and describe their own accounts of those painful days, when they personally witnessed the heart-rending demise of their parents in concentration camps and bone-crushing machines. How should we resolve these contradictions?
I will not answer this question. I would risk five more years in jail if I answered these questions honestly and truthfully. However, in the age of the Internet, others less known than I am find ways to simplify a painful, multifaceted problem, as this cartoon makes plain.
Many people of other countries have come to the categorical conclusion that the Western world is a beacon of liberty and unrestricted freedom of speech. But it sometimes seems that the reality is something else, and that people can be easily prosecuted merely for publishing views that are disliked. The booklet you published, Did Six Million Really Die?, is an example. What do you think?
Here is just one more example of what I already outlined above: We have faxes and other documents that prove on official embassy letterhead that the much vaunted and propagandized U.S. Judiciary has run interference for these kidnappers and renditioners via behind-the-scenes ex parte communication, thus engaging in a cover-up and whitewash worse than the ones practiced by those the U.S. government always blames for human rights violations in their hypocritical press campaigns, like against China in Tibet, Lukashenko in Belarus, Putin in Moscow and, of course, Iran during the recent so-called Green Revolution.
Many Zionist websites have introduced you as a white supremacist. Is that a fair characterization?
This claim is a convenient character assassination technique. I have never been a white supremacist and have stated so for decades, publicly, in countless interviews, newsletters, speeches, broadcasts, etc. It is my opponents’ modus operandi to broad-brush complex issues by politically expedient demonization.
You’re opposed to the regime of Israel because of its discriminatory and atrocious approach against the nation of Palestine. You consider yourself a pacifist who advocates stability and peace; aren’t these beliefs incompatible with your viewpoint regarding Hitler, who is internationally considered to be a notorious dictator and relentless killer? How can your peace-seeking stance come together with your approval of Hitler?
I cannot answer this question due to legal restraints. An honest and complete answer would land me in jail as a re-offender very quickly. Implicit in your question is the toxic image of me that my detractors would like you to have. To be called a Nazi is worse than being called a leper. For decades I have been on the receiving end of just such a targeted character assassination campaign. I have been jailed many times not for advocating an ideology but for expressing a dissident, alternative viewpoint on many topics, including Adolf Hitler’s role in history. Revisionism is not an ideology. It is merely a scientific method of re-examining historical events and of trying to understand the movers and shakers who made history a footnote to their personalities.
Let me answer your question this way: I have always abhorred any kind of violence in the pursuit of political goals. By anyone! Politically, I was and am a pacifist, much in the Gandhi style. I advocate a sober, neutral look at history, including the period known as the Third Reich. The peoples of the world, regardless of what system of government they live under, owe it to themselves to emancipate themselves of the simplistic images of propaganda and deceit posing as history.
On May 1995, your Toronto residence was the target of an arson attack which resulted in $400,000 worth of damage. A few days later, some of your extremist opponents were caught trying to break into your property. Again a few days later, you received a parcel bomb which the Toronto police detonated. Have you ever tried to lodge a complaint against them? Have they ever been lawfully sentenced?
This is the flip side of some of the questions above. While I have never advocated or engaged in violence, egregious acts of violence have been repeatedly practiced on me, of which the political kidnapping in 2003 was merely the latest. As to the fire and the bomb, no, nothing was ever resolved. The police apprehended the bomb builders and senders, but the charges laid were stayed. There seems to have been no political will at the highest levels of the Canadian government. There was no political coin to be garnered by prosecuting Jewish arsonists, who even confessed to the deed.
Do you differentiate between the Zionists and Jews as the followers of a divine, monotheistic religion?
Yes, the two are totally different. Some Orthodox Jews who are united against Zionism, such as the Neturei Karta, believe that also. They know the godfathers of Communism and Zionism followed identical policies. The guiding spirit behind the two systems is the same. Neturei Karta rabbis attended the 2006 Teheran Conference sponsored by your President in an attempt to distance themselves from what they consider to be a dangerous atheist clique in the pursuit of illegal politics of conquest of which they want no part.
The mainstream corporate media, while having already vilified you, remained silent about your release. What do you think about this? Are you going to continue your ideological path or would you prefer to keep a low profile and forget about the intellectual activities?
Ironically, that was exactly what I intended to do when I moved to Tennessee and married Ingrid; keeping a low profile and turning to private endeavors such as my love for art and music. I felt that my revisionist outreach was finished, concluded to my inner satisfaction. Let others read both sides and then judge for themselves. All the arguments, all the information needed on the Holocaust is out there, on the Internet, in tens of thousands of websites, all for the taking. How often do you have to dig up an archeological site to find yet one more bone, yet one more implicating shard? My wife likes to say that you don’t have to eat a camel to know what a cutlet tastes like. I was quite ready to retire and satisfy my creative needs and desires. I could leave the political mopping-up activities for others to complete. But could my political opponents bring themselves, as rational people might have, to likewise call it quits? No; that is simply not in their nature.
As you point out so cogently, a powerful vilification campaign is still going full blast. It keeps my name in the media for people to decide for themselves who I am. Upon my release, my wife has collected thousands and thousands of letters from readers, only three of which were negative! Not a bad record, of the millions of dollars spent and millions of words dispersed in an attempt to paint me as as a devil with horns.
Let me ask you – would your prestigious publication have cared to interview me if you thought that I deserved the label of Evil Incarnate?
[Editor's note: The views and beliefs of Ernst Zundel are his own, and not those of Foreign Policy Journal. It is the policy of FPJ to uphold the principle of freedom of speech, which means freedom to say things that others may find despicable. It is otherwise a meaningless principle. It is also the position of FPJ that both sides to a story deserve to be heard. It's up to readers to draw their own conclusions and make their own judgments.]
Kourosh Ziabari is an Iranian media correspondent, freelance journalist and the author of Book 7+1. He is a contributing writer for websites and magazines in the Netherlands, Canada, Italy, Hong Kong, Bulgaria, South Korea, Belgium, Germany, the U.K. and the U.S. He is a member of Stony Brook University Publications’ editorial team and Media Left magazine’s board of editors, as well as a contributing editor for Finland’s Award-winning Ovi Magazine. As a young Iranian journalist, he has been interviewed and quoted by several mainstream mediums, including BBC World Service, PBS Media Shift, the Media Line network, Deutsch Financial Times, L.A. Times and Sky News. He is a contributing writer of Tehran Times newspaper. His articles and interviews have been translated into numerous languages, including Spanish, Italian, German and Arabic. Contact him at kourosh@foreignpolicyjournal.com. Read more articles by Kourosh Ziabari.
An exclusive interview with one of Europe's most well-known political prisoners
by Kourosh Ziabari for Foreign Policy Journal
Ernst Zundel is a German author and historian who has spent seven years of his life behind bars as a result of expressing his controversial viewpoints and opinions. He is a revisionist who has denied the Holocaust as described by most historians. He has been one of the most prominent political prisoners in Europe and has been jailed in three countries on two continents.
After his arrest in the U.S. in 2003, he was deported to Canada, where he was kept in prison as “a threat to the national security” for two years. After deportation to Germany in March 2005, he was convicted and sentenced in 2007 to five additional years of imprisonment on charges of holocaust denial. He was finally released on March 1, 2010.
This is the first interview Ernst Zundel has given since his release.
Firstly, I would like to extend my congratulations on your recent release. Were you ever mistreated or subject to any type of mental or physical punishment in breach of international conventions?
My entire treatment these past seven years by those arresting me, trying and convicting me, and keeping me in prison has been in brutal breach of international conventions. I was arrested in broad daylight on American soil by officials of the U.S. government who acted as hit squads for a nefarious lobby. There was no arrest warrant. I was not read my rights. I was whisked away in handcuffs without being allowed to get my wallet, to call my attorney, to be allowed to make my case before an American Immigration Judge or even hug my wife goodbye.
I was incarcerated in six different prisons on two continents in three countries — the USA, Canada, and Germany — without relief of any kind. In effect, I have had 10 percent of my life stolen from me – and for what “crime”? For having “overstayed my U.S. visa”?Throughout my imprisonment, basic human rights principles were trampled underfoot repeatedly and with impunity. The worst prisons were the Canadian detention centers at Thorold, Ontario and at Toronto West, where I was held for two long years in isolation cells, ice-cold in the winter, no shoes or socks allowed. The electric light in these cells, bright enough to be able to read, was kept on 24 hours a day. Through a glass slot in the door I was checked every 20 minutes, and my activities were meticulously noted by the guards: one sheet for every day. No dignity, no privacy. My toothbrush was kept in a plastic bin in a hall. I was not allowed to speak to other prisoners. Bed sheets were changed only after three months. No pillows. No chairs. When I wrote to my wife or to my attorneys, I had to sit on a makeshift pile of my court transcripts. No radio, no television, not even an electrical outlet to sharpen my pencils. No ball point pens, only pencil stubs, cut in half with a saw. No spoons, forks, or knives were permitted; only a white plastic spoon with a fork called a “spork” that had to be returned every time at the end of the meal. With very few exceptions when furtive guards showed me some kindness away from the surveillance cameras, I was treated as though I was the worst of criminals. That’s Canada for you, where I have lived and worked without a criminal record for more than 40 years.
It was somewhat better, but not much, in the United States. In Germany, it was quite a bit better in terms of the basic necessities, but personal mail was routinely withheld – 1,700 letters for up to five years – even after I forced a court to order that it be given to me. My so-called trial in Mannheim was a political show trial in the Stalinist mode in that my guilt was a foregone conclusion. I requested that exculpatory exhibits be allowed as validation for what I believed and had written and said. No meaningful defense was allowed. I could not put on record any forensic evidence, any historical documents, or even expert witnesses, That very request to be allowed to offer evidence was held to be a new offense of criminal behavior and could have resulted in new criminal charges – as were, in fact, lodged against my lawyers during that very trial who tried to overcome these restrictions.
Along with the rest of EU members, Germany regularly criticizes other countries for violations of free speech and human rights. However, your case demonstrated the emptiness of such claims within Europe. What’s your take on that? Is Europe really a utopia of liberty and freedom of speech?
Most European countries have only selected free speech for officially approved and sanctioned views on history. Almost all EU countries have laws in place that restrict freedom of speech under the guise of one fig leaf or other, such as the prevention of racist or neo-Nazi activities. The state decides selectively who is and what is racist. These laws are hypocritical, in Germany’s case superseding even their own Basic Law.
Dissidents are allowed very little opportunity to be read or heard in the mainstream corporate media channels of the West. The control mechanisms of the press are many, often subtle but widely understood and obeyed – fear of loss of jobs, diminished circulation, the withholding of government advertisements etc. There is no longer unrestricted freedom in any Western country, not even in the U.S. with its wonderful Constitution and Amendments such as the Bill of Rights.
Allow me here to point out to your readers the outline of a censorship practice known by its neutral term “rendition”, but more honestly defined as political kidnappings to force the silencing of dissident speech or alternate thoughts. Renditions in the West are ever more frequently practiced not only against alleged “terrorist suspects” but against ordinary political activists and writers whose viewpoints are frowned upon by such outfits as AIPAC and similar Zionist lobby and interest groups, B’nai Brith, the Canadian Jewish Congress etc.
In order to spell out what I can only describe to you in broad strokes, I’d like to briefly shed light on the period preceding my arrest in the U.S. and Canada, the conniving and the similarity in other cases like mine, where an innocuous or alleged infraction is used as a fig leaf to silence a political opponent.
Viet Dinh, a Georgetown University law professor and director of their Asian Law and Policy Studies Program who helped craft the Patriot Act, put it succinctly, as reported in an American publication called Wired that deals with freedom of speech on the net. That interview reads:
Wired News: An estimated 5,000 people have been subjected to detention since 9/11. Of those, only five — three noncitizens and two citizens — were charged with terrorism-related crimes and one was convicted. How do we justify such broad-sweeping legislation that has resulted in very few terrorist-related convictions?This is exactly what happened to me. The initial reason given was an alleged immigration infraction – namely a “visa overstay”. I was no terrorist; I was a dissident writer. My political detractors knew perfectly well that I was in America legally, awaiting adjustment of status due to my marriage to an American citizen. I was in Immigration Adjustment of Status proceedings, meticulously following all the prerequisite steps. I was living openly in a rural area in Tennessee and was listed by address in the local telephone book. The U.S. government had given me a Social Security number, a work permit, a document that allowed me to leave the country and return unmolested. I had undergone and passed an FBI check and a health clearance. The only last step missing was a personal interview by an immigration official to ascertain a valid marriage to my American citizen wife.
Dinh: I’ve heard the 5,000 number. The official numbers released from the Department of Justice indicate approximately 500 persons have been charged with immigration violations and have been deported who have been of interest to the 9/11 investigation.
It may well be that a number of citizens were not charged with terrorism-related crimes, but they need not be. Where the department has suspected people of terrorism, it will prosecute those persons for other violations of law, rather than wait for a terrorist conspiracy to fully develop and risk the potential that that conspiracy will be missed and thereby sacrificing innocent American lives in the process.
We had been notified in writing that this interview could take as long as three years, and that no status report would be given. We were patiently waiting for that last step, a routine interview with an immigration official. Our immigration attorney had requested such an interview in writing – twice! Under oath, he testified that he had written those letters. These letters have mysteriously disappeared from our immigration file. When I was arrested, it was claimed that I had negligently “missed a hearing” which gave them grounds for an arrest due to a visa overstay. In other words, a simple bureaucratic loophole was found or fabricated that has cost me seven years of my life.
What happened to me in the context of a deliberate state policy of deception has also happened to others. Similar ruses via false accusations were used in cases like Germar Rudolf, likefwise married to an American citizen, El Masri of Germany, Maher Arar of Canada, Gerd Honsik of Spain, Siegfried Verbeke of Belgium, David Irving, and now Bishop Williamson of England, to name only a few individuals who were caught between the grind stones of a criminal policy possible only under the Patriot Act in the U.S. and similar legal instruments in other countries. Embedded in that background of a widespread covert policy and practice to force political conformity, my case makes eminent sense. We are no longer dealing with an aberration. These extrajudicial renditions give 9/11 and the Patriot Act a new light as a global policy instrument of brutal censorship of unpopular thinkers and writers.
The thrust of a prestigious publication such as yours would normally deal with the policies of foreign governments, renditions, kidnappings, and incarcerations not only of foreign enemies but, as in the case of Vanunu, an Israeli-born- and-raised atomic scientist. He was no neo-Nazi, no racist, no Holocaust Denier, yet he was relentlessly pursued by the Mossad and ultimately kidnapped and jailed for 18 years.
The patterns of the breaking of international law and conventions, the use of false identities, and the brazen practice of breaking and entering by spy and intelligence agencies, etc. – these criminal activities are daily in the news. This sets the stage and makes my case a logical progression of an old, established policy, with this one difference: we are no longer talking about hunting and kidnapping alleged “Nazi war criminals” like Eichmann or stone-throwing Palestinians or even “Arab terrorists”, but instead the targeting of writers and other political dissidents in Western countries calling themselves “democracies”.
My story does not even end there. In my case, my “Holocaust Denier” profile was convenient, but passé. It was not even, as is so commonly and falsely claimed, “Denial of the Holocaust” or even more bizarre, my “visa overstay”! I was told what actually happened by a friend of ours with high-level UN connections. In his own words: “It was the Blue Booklet that did it! That’s when it was decided at the very highest level to take you out for good!”
Here is what happened, briefly: In the early months post-9/11 my wife, an avid Internetter, discovered a compelling research document entitled Stranger than Fiction: An Independent Investigation of 9/11 and the War on Terrorism by Anonymous, 11-11-2. She gave it to me over breakfast. I read it, found it interesting, and ran a few copies off on my printer for people on my mailing list. I did not write that lavishly footnoted paper. I did not research it. I merely copied it. Somebody must have concluded that I, with my background of thorough forensic investigations in other areas, showed more than ordinary interest in 9/11 as a potential political false flag common in intelligence agency operations!
During my trial in Mannheim, ostensibly for “Holocaust Denial”, portions of my monthly newsletter, where I mentioned this booklet and the 9/11 topic, were referenced by the prosecution as criminal offenses. Only after it became clear that I welcomed the opportunity to have my attorneys present forensic evidence of a potential 9/11 cover-up were those portions of the accusation against me hastily dropped, and my trial became a “Holocaust Denial” show trial in the traditional Stalinist mode, “… accuse wildly but don’t allow a defense!”
As we later found out through various freedom of information requests in various countries, there was in place for years a deliberate, convoluted plan to arrest and detain me under false pretenses so as to take me out and put me behind bars.
I mention this only as an overarching, logical example as to how diabolically clever my political opponents are in using the accusation of “Holocaust Denial” and persecution of Holocaust Revisionists as arrows in their arsenal of weaponry to shore up, consolidate, and protect their deceptively acquired power and influence.
What’s the reality behind Holocaust? Didn’t it happen at all? What about people such as Elie Wiesel, Thomas Blatt, Wladyslaw Bartoszewski and Leopold Engleitner who are Holocaust survivors and describe their own accounts of those painful days, when they personally witnessed the heart-rending demise of their parents in concentration camps and bone-crushing machines. How should we resolve these contradictions?
I will not answer this question. I would risk five more years in jail if I answered these questions honestly and truthfully. However, in the age of the Internet, others less known than I am find ways to simplify a painful, multifaceted problem, as this cartoon makes plain.
Many people of other countries have come to the categorical conclusion that the Western world is a beacon of liberty and unrestricted freedom of speech. But it sometimes seems that the reality is something else, and that people can be easily prosecuted merely for publishing views that are disliked. The booklet you published, Did Six Million Really Die?, is an example. What do you think?
Here is just one more example of what I already outlined above: We have faxes and other documents that prove on official embassy letterhead that the much vaunted and propagandized U.S. Judiciary has run interference for these kidnappers and renditioners via behind-the-scenes ex parte communication, thus engaging in a cover-up and whitewash worse than the ones practiced by those the U.S. government always blames for human rights violations in their hypocritical press campaigns, like against China in Tibet, Lukashenko in Belarus, Putin in Moscow and, of course, Iran during the recent so-called Green Revolution.
Many Zionist websites have introduced you as a white supremacist. Is that a fair characterization?
This claim is a convenient character assassination technique. I have never been a white supremacist and have stated so for decades, publicly, in countless interviews, newsletters, speeches, broadcasts, etc. It is my opponents’ modus operandi to broad-brush complex issues by politically expedient demonization.
You’re opposed to the regime of Israel because of its discriminatory and atrocious approach against the nation of Palestine. You consider yourself a pacifist who advocates stability and peace; aren’t these beliefs incompatible with your viewpoint regarding Hitler, who is internationally considered to be a notorious dictator and relentless killer? How can your peace-seeking stance come together with your approval of Hitler?
I cannot answer this question due to legal restraints. An honest and complete answer would land me in jail as a re-offender very quickly. Implicit in your question is the toxic image of me that my detractors would like you to have. To be called a Nazi is worse than being called a leper. For decades I have been on the receiving end of just such a targeted character assassination campaign. I have been jailed many times not for advocating an ideology but for expressing a dissident, alternative viewpoint on many topics, including Adolf Hitler’s role in history. Revisionism is not an ideology. It is merely a scientific method of re-examining historical events and of trying to understand the movers and shakers who made history a footnote to their personalities.
Let me answer your question this way: I have always abhorred any kind of violence in the pursuit of political goals. By anyone! Politically, I was and am a pacifist, much in the Gandhi style. I advocate a sober, neutral look at history, including the period known as the Third Reich. The peoples of the world, regardless of what system of government they live under, owe it to themselves to emancipate themselves of the simplistic images of propaganda and deceit posing as history.
On May 1995, your Toronto residence was the target of an arson attack which resulted in $400,000 worth of damage. A few days later, some of your extremist opponents were caught trying to break into your property. Again a few days later, you received a parcel bomb which the Toronto police detonated. Have you ever tried to lodge a complaint against them? Have they ever been lawfully sentenced?
This is the flip side of some of the questions above. While I have never advocated or engaged in violence, egregious acts of violence have been repeatedly practiced on me, of which the political kidnapping in 2003 was merely the latest. As to the fire and the bomb, no, nothing was ever resolved. The police apprehended the bomb builders and senders, but the charges laid were stayed. There seems to have been no political will at the highest levels of the Canadian government. There was no political coin to be garnered by prosecuting Jewish arsonists, who even confessed to the deed.
Do you differentiate between the Zionists and Jews as the followers of a divine, monotheistic religion?
Yes, the two are totally different. Some Orthodox Jews who are united against Zionism, such as the Neturei Karta, believe that also. They know the godfathers of Communism and Zionism followed identical policies. The guiding spirit behind the two systems is the same. Neturei Karta rabbis attended the 2006 Teheran Conference sponsored by your President in an attempt to distance themselves from what they consider to be a dangerous atheist clique in the pursuit of illegal politics of conquest of which they want no part.
The mainstream corporate media, while having already vilified you, remained silent about your release. What do you think about this? Are you going to continue your ideological path or would you prefer to keep a low profile and forget about the intellectual activities?
Ironically, that was exactly what I intended to do when I moved to Tennessee and married Ingrid; keeping a low profile and turning to private endeavors such as my love for art and music. I felt that my revisionist outreach was finished, concluded to my inner satisfaction. Let others read both sides and then judge for themselves. All the arguments, all the information needed on the Holocaust is out there, on the Internet, in tens of thousands of websites, all for the taking. How often do you have to dig up an archeological site to find yet one more bone, yet one more implicating shard? My wife likes to say that you don’t have to eat a camel to know what a cutlet tastes like. I was quite ready to retire and satisfy my creative needs and desires. I could leave the political mopping-up activities for others to complete. But could my political opponents bring themselves, as rational people might have, to likewise call it quits? No; that is simply not in their nature.
As you point out so cogently, a powerful vilification campaign is still going full blast. It keeps my name in the media for people to decide for themselves who I am. Upon my release, my wife has collected thousands and thousands of letters from readers, only three of which were negative! Not a bad record, of the millions of dollars spent and millions of words dispersed in an attempt to paint me as as a devil with horns.
Let me ask you – would your prestigious publication have cared to interview me if you thought that I deserved the label of Evil Incarnate?
[Editor's note: The views and beliefs of Ernst Zundel are his own, and not those of Foreign Policy Journal. It is the policy of FPJ to uphold the principle of freedom of speech, which means freedom to say things that others may find despicable. It is otherwise a meaningless principle. It is also the position of FPJ that both sides to a story deserve to be heard. It's up to readers to draw their own conclusions and make their own judgments.]
Kourosh Ziabari is an Iranian media correspondent, freelance journalist and the author of Book 7+1. He is a contributing writer for websites and magazines in the Netherlands, Canada, Italy, Hong Kong, Bulgaria, South Korea, Belgium, Germany, the U.K. and the U.S. He is a member of Stony Brook University Publications’ editorial team and Media Left magazine’s board of editors, as well as a contributing editor for Finland’s Award-winning Ovi Magazine. As a young Iranian journalist, he has been interviewed and quoted by several mainstream mediums, including BBC World Service, PBS Media Shift, the Media Line network, Deutsch Financial Times, L.A. Times and Sky News. He is a contributing writer of Tehran Times newspaper. His articles and interviews have been translated into numerous languages, including Spanish, Italian, German and Arabic. Contact him at kourosh@foreignpolicyjournal.com. Read more articles by Kourosh Ziabari.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
France implicated in Hariri murder case
Press TV reports:
A witness who gave false testimony in the case of the murder of the former Lebanese premier says France had provided him with a forged passport to help him get away with perjury.
A report by the Volatairenet website said that France had provided Mohammed Zuhair Siddiq -- the key witness in the case of Rafiq Hariri's murder -- with a forged passport to grant him immunity from prosecution.
The report came amid accusations by the US and Israel against Syria and Hezbollah, claiming that traces of their involvement were found in Hariri's assassination in 2005.
According to the report, a UN probe committee headed by German prosecutor Detlev Mehlis had relied on the testimony given by Siddiq, who claimed to be a former senior Syrian intelligence official.
In his testimony, Siddiq had accused the Syrian and Lebanese presidents of masterminding the murder. He also accused seven Syrian and four Lebanese generals of organizing the assassination.
After presenting his testimony, Siddiq took refuge in the Spanish property of Rifaat al-Assad, who is the pro-US uncle of incumbent Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
Siddiq was then offered support by the French General Directorate for External Security (DGSE).
While being under the protection of DGSE, the French police department eavesdropped on his telephone calls and found out that Siddiq had lied to the tribunal tasked with probing Hariri's murder case that he was a senior Syrian official.
It was later reported in Lebanese media that Prime Minister Saad Hariri and Lebanon's Druze leader Walid Jumblatt had paid him to commit perjury.
In their defense, Hariri and Jumblatt denied paying for perjury, but admitted to having encouraged Siddiq to testify, believing he was sincere.
Siddiq was then arrested in France under an international arrest warrant issued by the Lebanese judiciary but was later released with Paris refusing to extradite him to Lebanon.
He was living in Paris for a while but later vanished into thin air in March 2008. The French government did not provide any explanation on the issue.
Siddiq was then traced in the UAE, where he was arrested and sentenced to six months in prison for carrying a forged Czech passport.
After being released from prison in the UAE, Siddiq told reporters that he received his passport from the office of French President Nicolas Sarkozy to escape Lebanese justice.
Hariri was Lebanon's most prominent politician since the end of the 1975-1990 civil war. He was killed in a massive truck bombing that set off a spiral of political turmoil in Lebanon.
A witness who gave false testimony in the case of the murder of the former Lebanese premier says France had provided him with a forged passport to help him get away with perjury.
A report by the Volatairenet website said that France had provided Mohammed Zuhair Siddiq -- the key witness in the case of Rafiq Hariri's murder -- with a forged passport to grant him immunity from prosecution.
The report came amid accusations by the US and Israel against Syria and Hezbollah, claiming that traces of their involvement were found in Hariri's assassination in 2005.
According to the report, a UN probe committee headed by German prosecutor Detlev Mehlis had relied on the testimony given by Siddiq, who claimed to be a former senior Syrian intelligence official.
In his testimony, Siddiq had accused the Syrian and Lebanese presidents of masterminding the murder. He also accused seven Syrian and four Lebanese generals of organizing the assassination.
After presenting his testimony, Siddiq took refuge in the Spanish property of Rifaat al-Assad, who is the pro-US uncle of incumbent Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
Siddiq was then offered support by the French General Directorate for External Security (DGSE).
While being under the protection of DGSE, the French police department eavesdropped on his telephone calls and found out that Siddiq had lied to the tribunal tasked with probing Hariri's murder case that he was a senior Syrian official.
It was later reported in Lebanese media that Prime Minister Saad Hariri and Lebanon's Druze leader Walid Jumblatt had paid him to commit perjury.
In their defense, Hariri and Jumblatt denied paying for perjury, but admitted to having encouraged Siddiq to testify, believing he was sincere.
Siddiq was then arrested in France under an international arrest warrant issued by the Lebanese judiciary but was later released with Paris refusing to extradite him to Lebanon.
He was living in Paris for a while but later vanished into thin air in March 2008. The French government did not provide any explanation on the issue.
Siddiq was then traced in the UAE, where he was arrested and sentenced to six months in prison for carrying a forged Czech passport.
After being released from prison in the UAE, Siddiq told reporters that he received his passport from the office of French President Nicolas Sarkozy to escape Lebanese justice.
Hariri was Lebanon's most prominent politician since the end of the 1975-1990 civil war. He was killed in a massive truck bombing that set off a spiral of political turmoil in Lebanon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
