A court decision that reflects what type of country the U.S. is

Even when government officials purposely subject an innocent person to brutal torture, they enjoy full immunity.

By Glenn Greenwald - November 3, 2009

It's not often that an appellate court decision reflects so vividly what a country has become, but such is the case with yesterday's ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Arar v. Ashcroft (.pdf). Maher Arar is both a Canadian and Syrian citizen of Syrian descent. A telecommunications engineer and graduate of Montreal's McGill University, he has lived in Canada since he's 17 years old. In 2002, he was returning home to Canada from vacation when, on a stopover at JFK Airport, he was (a) detained by U.S. officials, (b) accused of being a Terrorist, (c) held for two weeks incommunicado and without access to counsel while he was abusively interrogated, and then (d) was "rendered" -- despite his pleas that he would be tortured -- to Syria, to be interrogated and tortured. He remained in Syria for the next 10 months under the most brutal and inhumane conditions imaginable, where he was repeatedly tortured. Everyone acknowledges that Arar was never involved with Terrorism and was guilty of nothing. I've appended to the end of this post the graphic description from a dissenting judge of what was done to Arar while in American custody and then in Syria.

In January, 2007, the Canadian Prime Minister publicly apologized to Arar for the role Canada played in these events, and the Canadian government paid him $9 million in compensation. That was preceded by a full investigation by Canadian authorities and the public disclosure of a detailed report which concluded "categorically that there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Arar has committed any offense or that his activities constituted a threat to the security of Canada." By stark and very revealing contrast, the U.S. Government has never admitted any wrongdoing or even spoken publicly about what it did; to the contrary, it repeatedly insisted that courts were barred from examining the conduct of government officials because what we did to Arar involves "state secrets" and because courts should not interfere in the actions of the Executive where national security is involved. What does that behavioral disparity between the two nations say about how "democratic," "accountable," and "open" the United States is?

• Continue Reading

Yesterday, the Second Circuit -- by a vote of 7-4 -- agreed with the government and dismissed Arar's case in its entirety. It held that even if the government violated Arar's Constitutional rights as well as statutes banning participation in torture, he still has no right to sue for what was done to him. Why? Because "providing a damages remedy against senior officials who implement an extraordinary rendition policy would enmesh the courts ineluctably in an assessment of the validity of the rationale of that policy and its implementation in this particular case, matters that directly affect significant diplomatic and national security concerns" (p. 39). In other words, government officials are free to do anything they want in the national security context -- even violate the law and purposely cause someone to be tortured -- and courts should honor and defer to their actions by refusing to scrutinize them.

Reflecting the type of people who fill our judiciary, the judges in the majority also invented the most morally depraved bureaucratic requirements for Arar to proceed with his case and then claimed he had failed to meet them. Arar did not, for instance, have the names of the individuals who detained and abused him at JFK, which the majority said he must have. As Judge Sack in dissent said of that requirement: it "means government miscreants may avoid [] liability altogether through the simple expedient of wearing hoods while inflicting injury" (p. 27; emphasis added).

The commentary about this case from Harper's Scott Horton perfectly captures the depravity of what our Government has done -- and continues to do -- to Arar. His analysis should be read in its entirety, and he concludes with this:

When the history of the Second Circuit is written, the Arar decision will have a prominent place. It offers all the historical foresight of Dred Scott, in which the Court rallied to the cause of slavery, and all the commitment to constitutional principle of the Slaughter-House Cases, in which the Fourteenth Amendment was eviscerated. The Court that once affirmed that those who torture are the “enemies of all mankind” now tells us that U.S. government officials can torture without worry, because the security of our state might some day depend upon it.

I want to add one principal point to all of this. This is precisely how the character of a country becomes fundamentally degraded when it becomes a state in permanent war. So continuous are the inhumane and brutal acts of government leaders that the citizens completely lose the capacity for moral outrage and horror. The permanent claims of existential threats from an endless array of enemies means that secrecy is paramount, accountability is deemed a luxury, and National Security trumps every other consideration -- even including basic liberties and the rule of law. Worst of all, the President takes on the attributes of a protector-deity who can and must never be questioned lest we prevent him from keeping us safe.

This is exactly why I find so objectionable and dangerous the ongoing embrace by the Obama administration of these same secrecy and immunity weapons. Obama had nothing to do with the Arar case -- all the conduct, and even the legal briefing, occurred before he was President -- but he has taken numerous steps to further institutionalize the core injustice here, including in cases that are quite similar to Arar: namely, that the Executive can use secrecy and national security claims to shield himself from the rule of law, even when he's accused of torture and war crimes. That's exactly what happened here, yet again. As Judge Parker wrote in dissent (click image to enlarge)

Identically, Judge Calabresi -- one of the most respected and non-ideological appellate judges in the country -- accused the majority of "utter subservience to the executive branch." Surely that's true, but it isn't only the Arar majority that is guilty of that. It is the nation as a whole -- drowning in infinite claims of "state secrets" and executive immunity and war necessity and the imperatives of "looking forward" -- that has meekly acquiesced to the pernicious idea that the President in an allegedly national security context must never have his actions disclosed, let alone judicially scrutinized and held accountable, no matter how criminal, brutal and inhumane those actions are.

**********************

Here's Judge's Sack's description of what was done to Arar in Syria, which accords perfectly with what the Canadian investigation found -- this is what our Government (both the executive and judicial branches) has continuously insisted it can purposely cause to happen without any accountability or even transparency (pp. 13-15):

Judge Sack's equally horrific description of exactly what the U.S. did to cause all of that to happen to Arar is here.

Source

Israel bans lawmaker from leaving West Bank

November 3, 2009

Tulkarem – Ma'an – Israel prevented the second deputy speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, Hassan Khreisha, from entering Jordan from the West Bank on his way to Brussels on Monday.

In a telephone interview, Khreisha said that he was traveling to Brussels via Jordan in order to participate in a meeting organized by the political committee of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly.

He added Israeli authorities gave no explanation for banning him from travelling. It was the fourth time in seven months the official has been denied the right to travel.

Netanyahu to hawk alternative energy at Copenhagen

Giving gas the boot
By Aluf Benn - Haaretz - October 29, 2009
Emphasis - Aletho News

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants to be remembered as the leader of a small nation who warned the great countries about the dangers lurking for Western democracy, and showed them how to protect themselves. The prime minister takes pride in having been the first to sound the alarm about Islamic terror and the Iranian nuclear project, when all the others were dozing off.

Now Netanyahu has found a new goal: ending the world's dependence on oil. In his speech at the Israeli Presidential Conference last week, Netanyahu surprised participants by announcing a national project for developing an alternative to oil within 10 years. [...]

At the cabinet meeting on Sunday, Netanyahu repeated his tripartite vision of dealing with alternative energy, water resources and environmental preservation, and announced the appointment of a team led by Prof. Eugene Kandel, head of the National Economic Council, to spearhead the project.

It was a worthy platform for unveiling the initiative. The Presidential Conference participants are supporters of Israel and include many media representatives, and Netanyahu also enjoyed the sponsorship of the man of vision, President Shimon Peres. However, the Prime Minister's Bureau did not prepare even a basic information sheet on Israel's alternative energy capabilities, or on the direction of research and development, and did not invite the technology reporters to hear about the project. As a result, Netanyahu presented a half-baked idea that came across as a pretentious card pulled out of his sleeve rather than as a serious plan of action. [...]

The logic is simple: Replacing oil with clean energy will crush the political power of the petroleum-producing countries. "Dependence on fossil fuels strengthens the dark regimes that encourage instability and fund terror with their petrodollars," said Netanyahu.

The conclusion is obvious: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez will not be able to wreak damage and will ferment if they lose their fountain of cash. [...]

Oil means trouble

For years, Israeli researcher Gal Luft has been preaching about "energy security" in Washington, and warning that the oil addiction is making the West a captive to threatening and unstable regimes. In his lectures, he reminds Americans that in their land of suburbia, it is impossible even to buy bread without driving a petroleum-fueled car. He relates that much of the world's oil reserves lie under the Sunni-Shiite rift - that is, in regions prone to Islamic extremism and religious wars. In short, oil means trouble.

Netanyahu shares this view, but adds two new dimensions. He believes alternative energy will create a more equal distribution of global wealth, and will not enrich only countries blessed with subterranean oil reserves. This is especially important for developing countries like China, India and the African states, which depend on oil from the Middle East and whose industrial revolution is restricted by concerns about greenhouse gas emissions.

Israel can benefit from alternative energy in several ways: by building a new high-tech industry in an in-demand field; by cooperating with the rising powers in Asia, which are less interested in the Palestinians and the occupation; and by transforming itself into a site for clean-energy experiments that improve air quality here. If Netanyahu attends the upcoming world climate conference in Copenhagen, as has been proposed, it will be to present the idea to the international community.

This week, Prof. Kandel presented the preliminary outline of the project to the government. Two steering committees will be established: one of leading scientists, who will decide which aspects of alternative energy development must be addressed, and will identify where Israel has relative advantages in that realm; and another of industrialists and government officials, who will formulate a practical plan of action. Israel also will propose cooperative ventures with foreign countries and international companies.

A preliminary Israeli-American agreement on alternative energy development was signed in the twilight of former U.S. president George W. Bush's term, but Netanyahu's bureau is planning much more extensive endeavors. Israeli companies have been making advances in solar energy, water technology, chemical industries and information systems for managing the energy economy. However, in the meantime, there has been no breakthrough invention that would free cars, ships and planes from their dependence on petroleum, and provide a clean alternative to coal-based electricity.

Full article

Would Israel arrest a Jewish terrorist with only Arab victims?

By Avi Issacharoff
Haaretz, November 2, 2009

It's reasonable to assume that if Yaakov (Jack) Teitel had focused only on attacking Palestinians, he would have encountered few problems with law-enforcement authorities. His big mistake, it seems, was targeting non-Arabs as well.

Experience - and statistics - show that Israeli law enforcement is remarkably lax when it comes to tackling violence against Palestinians. Twelve years ago, Teitel confessed to killing two Arabs and then took a break from such activity. Sure, he was detained for questioning after the murder of shepherd Issa Mahamra, but he was released due to insufficient evidence. As with many other cases of murder and violence committed against Palestinians, the story of the shepherd from Yatta and the taxi driver from East Jerusalem disappeared into oblivion - until Teitel returned and attempted to harm Jews, bringing the wrath of public opinion, the Shin Bet security service and the Israel Police down on his head.

The (justifiably) prevailing feeling among Palestinians in the West Bank is that their blood is of no consequence. It's hard to find a Palestinian today who will make an effort to approach the Israeli police about a settler assault, unless Israeli human-rights groups help him. The way Palestinians in the territories see it, Israeli law is enforced only if Jews are harmed, while incidents in which Palestinians are murdered, beaten or otherwise wounded are treated cursorily at best - and more often, are ignored entirely.

For instance, at least six shooting attacks against Palestinians in 2001-2002 have remained unsolved. The most shocking incident took place in July 2001, when three members of the Tamaizi family were shot to death by a man in a skullcap, according to relatives. The gunman asked the driver of the vehicle to stop, as it drove from one end of the village of Idna to the other, after a family wedding. When it stopped, he opened fire. But it's doubtful that Israelis remember that 3-month-old Dai Marwan Tamaizi, born after his parents underwent 14 years of fertility treatments, was killed that day - as were Mohammed Salameh Tamaizi, 27, an only child, and Mohammed Hilmi al-Tamaizi, 24, who was engaged to be married.

One relative recalled last night that to this day, the Israeli authorities have not bothered to update the family on the outcome of their investigation.

Investigations by Palestinian-rights advocacy group Yesh Din has found that 90 percent of police investigations of cases in which Israelis are suspected of committing offenses against Palestinians in the West Bank are left unsolved and are closed. In a 2006 case, four settlers were suspected of beating an elderly Palestinian man with a rifle, leaving him unconscious for three weeks - but police didn't check the alibis of two of the suspects, and a third wasn't even questioned.

There are many more such incidents that indicate that the impression of Palestinians in the West Bank is rooted in reality. Maybe it's Arab terrorists simply interest the law-enforcement authorities more than Jewish terrorists.

Source

FBI Kills Islamic Cleric, Arrests Followers, for Being Muslims at the Wrong Time in America

By Stephen Lendman
November 2, 2009

On October 28, New York Times writer Nick Bunkley wrote the following:

"Federal agents (today) fatally shot a man they described as the leader of a violent Sunni Muslim separatist group in Detroit." Targeted was Luqman Ameen Abdullah "whom agents were trying to arrest in Dearborn on charges that included illegal possession and sale of firearms and conspiracy to sell stolen goods."

The Times echoed FBI allegations that Abdullah "began firing at them from a warehouse (and) was shot in the return fire...." Ones also that he said:

-- "America must fall;"

-- if police tried to arrest him he'd "strap a bomb on and blow up everybody;" and

-- that he urged his followers to get bulletproof vests by "shoot(ing) a cop in the head and tak(ing) their vest."

In fact, neither happened, and no surprise. No bombs were found or went off, and bulletproof vests are easily bought online from web sites like bulletproofme.com, so why shoot anyone to get them.

Post-9/11, America declared war on Islam with the FBI in the lead at home. It notoriously targets the vulnerable, entraps them with paid informants, inflates bogus charges, spreads them maliciously through the media, then intimidates juries to convict and sentence innocent men and some women to long prison terms. Justice is nearly always denied. At times willful killings are committed. The Detroit Muslims are their latest victims.

The Muslim Community Reacts

The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) "is a public service agency working for the civil rights of American Muslims, for the integration of Islam into American pluralism, and for a positive, constructive relationship between American Muslims and their representatives." Since its 1988 founding, it's become known for promoting "Mercy, Justice, Peace, Human Dignity, Freedom, and Equality for all."

On October 29, MPAC's Executive Director, Salam Al-Marayati said:

"There is a clear and present danger in the escalating mob mentality against vulnerable Muslim Americans."

The organization called for an investigation into the shooting death, saying it is "deeply disturbed" by the incident.

So is the Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA), a national network of masjids (mosques), Muslim organizations and individuals committed to addressing the needs of the Muslim community. It released a statement saying:

"It is with deep sadness and concern that we announce the shooting death of Imam Luqman A. Abdullah, of Masjid Al-Haqq (Detroit, MI). Imam Luqman was a representative of the Detroit Muslim community to the 'National Ummah' and the general assembly (Shura) of the Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA)...."

Ummah founder Jamil Al-Amin (aka H. Rap Brown) wanted it to be an association of mosques in US cities to coordinate religious and social services primarily in the black community. Calling it a "nationwide radical fundamentalist Sunni group consisting primarily of African-Americans" is an "offensive mischaracterization."

Those who've worked with Imam Abdullah know him for having "advocated for the downtrodden and always sp(eaking) about the importance of connecting to the needs of the poor." Alleging that he and his followers engaged in illegal activity, resisted arrest, and waged an "offensive jihad against the American government" are "shocking and inconsistent."

On October 30, the American Muslim Taskforce on Civil Rights and Elections (AMT), a coalition of major national Islamic organizations, issued this statement:

"It is imperative that an independent investigation of Imam Luqman Ameen Abdullah's death make public the exact circumstances in which he died. And unless the FBI has evidence linking the criminal allegations to the religious affiliation of the suspects, we ask that federal authorities stop injecting religion into this case. The unjustified linkage of this case to the faith Islam will only serve to promote an increase in existing anti-Muslim stereotyping and bias in our society."

AMT also urged the Congressional Tri-Causus (African-American, Latino and Asian) to call for a judicial inquiry.

A statement from The International Council for Urban (Formations) Peace, Justice and Empowerment read:

We members "are appalled by the raids on Masjid Al-Haqq and a halal meat packing plant that left (Abdullah) dead. We are demanding an independent investigation into this action that is clearly the result of a climate of Islamophobia fed by law enforcement and a media bent on sensationalism. (The FBI's) complaint and the resulting raid are nothing more than government sponsored terrorism against a group that was working to help the community...."

"The inconsistencies in this investigation are glaring. The case is based on sworn statements of informants. These informants were convicted criminals who were paid by the federal government for their 'work.' These criminals were used to engage and entrap law abiding citizens...."

We "never heard Imam Abdullah make any statements (or suggest any actions) consistent with the statements in the complaint...."

"The FBI has stated that this was not a terrorism case. However, the investigation was conducted by a counter terrorism unit."

"....Masjid Al-Haqq, under the direction of Imam Abdullah, fed the hungry, housed the homeless, worked with gangs and the formerly incarcerated to turn a crime ridden and drug infested neighborhood around to becoming a productive community....The most disturbing fact is that a religious leader who reached out to his people and his community is dead, the victim of a society that sees anyone who is different as dangerous."

Omar Regan, Abdullah's son, led the Friday, October 30 prayers at the Al-Haqq mosque, and said the following:

"My father was a sharp-tongued individual. He would talk about his dislike of the government, about how law enforcement wasn't protecting and serving the people. But speaking his emotions and acting on (them) are two different things."

Other community members echoed that sentiment in accusing the FBI of heavy-handed tactics that killed Abdullah maliciously from multiple gunshot wounds.

Abdullah El-Amin, an imam at Detroit's Muslim Center (the city's largest black mosque), said he knew Luqman for years and never heard him talk about wanting a separate Muslim state, just something "like the Pennsylvania Dutch have (with) their own communities and stuff."

He and about 20 other Detroit imams attended an October 29 meeting with US Attorney Terrence Berg and FBI Special Agent Andrew Arena at which they charged the Agency with entrapping Abdullah, then killing him in cold blood. One informant, they said, was a former Abdullah follower with a criminal past, and he and the others "came to a place where people are not getting social security, unemployment. They had nothing," so could easily be manipulated to sell stolen items they provided.

Dawud Walid, Executive Director of the Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said:

"The very incendiary rhetoric that the FBI alleges, I never heard that from (Abdullah). There was nothing extraordinary about him....I knew him as a respected imam in the Muslim community....I knew him to be charitable. He would open up the mosque to homeless people. He used to run a soup kitchen and feed indigent people....I knew nothing of him that was related to any nefarious or criminal behavior."

Walid added:

"Is this the kind of excessive force that we black Americans are all too familiar with?" He also questioned using informants he called "agent provocateurs" who entice law-abiding people to self-incriminate.

Other community members believe Abdullah was maliciously targeted, that the FBI likely initiated gunfire, and if he shot back it was in self-defense.

Even the FBI's complaint admitted that whatever alleged crimes were planned or committed, they were minor and inconsequential. Hardly offenses warranting a high-profile raid, shoot-out, and political assassination.

Department of Justices Allegations

On October 28, a Department of Justice (DOJ) press release headlined: "Eleven Members/Associates of Ummah Charged with Federal Violations - One Subject Fatally Shot During Arrest." The FBI and US Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, Terrence Berg, charged:

"Luqman Ameen Abdullah, aka Christopher Thomas, and 10 others with conspiracy to commit several federal crimes, including theft from interstate shipments, mail fraud to obtain the proceeds of arson, illegal possession and sale of firearms, and tampering with motor vehicle identification numbers. The eleven defendants are members of a group that is alleged to have engaged in violent activity over a period of many years, and known to be armed."

Those charged were "believed to be armed and dangerous (so) special safeguards were employed by law enforcement to secure the arrests without confrontation. During the arrests today, the suspects were ordered to surrender. At one location, four (did) and were arrested without incident. Luqman Ameen Abdullah did not surrender and fired his weapon. An exchange of gun fire followed and Abdullah was killed."

"Abdullah was the leader of part of a group which calls themselves Ummah ('the brotherhood'), a group of mostly African-American converts to Islam, which seeks to establish a separate Sharia-law governed state within the United States. The Ummah is ruled by Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin, formerly known as H. Rap Brown, who is serving a (life) sentence (without parole) in USP Florence, CO, ADMAX (supermax), for the murder of two police officers in Georgia."

In the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, a criminal complaint named:

-- Luqman Ameen Abdullah (aka Christopher Thomas);

-- Mohammad Abdul Bassir (aka Franklin D. Roosevelt Williams);

-- Muhammad Abdul Salaam (aka Muhammad Addul Salam; aka Gregory Stone; aka Gun Man; aka Norman Shields);

-- Abdul Saboor (aka Swayne Edward Davis);

-- Muhahid Carswell (aka Muhahid Abdullah, Luqman's son);

-- Abdullah Beard (aka Detric Lamont Driver);

-- Mohammad Philistine (aka Mohammad Palestine; aka Mohammad Al-Sahli);

-- Yassir Ali Khan;

-- Adam Hussain Ibraheem;

-- Garry Laverne Porter (aka Mujahid); and

-- Ali Abdul Raqib.

At the time of the raid, three of the men were still at large - Mujahid Carswell (Abdullah's son), Mohammad Philistine and Yassir Ali Khan. However, Windsor, Ontario police announced the arrest of Carswell the next day, and on October 31, they arrested Philistine and Ali Khan.

The unsealed complaint charged Abdullah with "espous(ing) the use of violence against law enforcement, (and) train(ing) members of his group in the use of firearms and martial arts in anticipation of some type of action against the government." It said "Abdullah and other members of this group were known to carry firearms and other weapons."

According to FBI Counter-Terrorism Squad Special Agent Gary Leone, a "confidential source" (aka paid informant) called S-2 provided "reliable and credible" information, "independently corroborated by other sources, and by consensual recordings he has made with the members of The Ummah at the direction of the FBI."

In a "surreptitiously" recorded December 12, 2007 conversation, "S-2 told Abdullah he had asked to donate $5,000 to pay to have someone 'do something' during the 2006 Super Bowl in Detroit. Abdullah said he would not be involved in injuring innocent people for no reason: 'If there's something to be done....it (has) to be legitimate.' "

He then allegedly said...."things are coming....I got some violence (in me) because of what they did to Imam Jamil (H. Rap Brown)....I got some stuff, man, I got some soldiers with me....Brothers that I know would, you know, if I say 'Let's go, we going to go and do something,' they would do it."

Leone said this and other recordings "confirm(ed) by (another paid informant) S-1 (showed) that Abdullah and his followers view themselves as soldiers at war against the United States government, and against non-Muslims," yet nothing in his above statement says that, so charges amount to putting FBI allegations in the mind of a dead man, unable to refute them.

The DOJ presented no evidence of a plot, a crime, or intent to commit one.

The FBI used three paid informants for over two years. On October 10, 2008, the third, S-3, allegedly recorded Abdullah saying:

"We have to cut the ties to (Christians, Jews, and the Kuffar (infidels). You cannot please them until you follow their religion....Obama is a Kafir (infidel, non-Muslim, an insulting term for any African American)....the premise of Allah and Islam (is) 'the worst Muslim is better than the best Kafir....we should be trying to figure out how to fight the Kuffar....Washington is trying to stop everything we do....they are my enemy, and I should be trying to plot as to how to make moves to get some things accomplished....(we) need to plan to do something."

These and other recordings show anger, not intent to commit crimes. Yet that's what the DOJ alleges. Saying "We are going to have to fight against the Kafir" suggests resistance against a hostile state. Even stronger statements, allegedly recorded, aren't hard evidence of planned violence against the FBI, other federal agents, or anyone else.

In its October 28 press release, the DOJ acknowledged that the above criminal complaint "is only a charge and is not evidence of guilt. A trial cannot be held on felony charges in a complaint. When the investigation is completed a determination will be made whether to seek a felony indictment." Yet the FBI killed Abdullah, allegedly in a shoot-out with only its account for proof, an Agency notorious for political assassinations and twisting facts to make its case.

Fred Hampton was assassinated in his bed in 1969

Imam Umar Responds

In a widely distributed message, an Imam Umar wrote:

"The FBI ups the ante. They set up Imam Luqman of Detroit and murdered him. We know him and the community he comes from. This is no terrorist trap. This was part criminal sting and when the Imam and his brothers peeped the tricks of the FBI, they lured him to a warehouse and killed him. Now they accuse Imam Jamil (H. Rap Brown) who has been in prison for the past ten years as leader of this group. He is an easy target. A lone Imam with the FBI was also an easy target. The FBI is not only tricky and devious....they are extremely dangerous thugs and murderers."

A follow-up message added:

"The FBI is known for their murderous tactics all over the world. When they are given an assignment they use every imaginative strategy to accomplish their goal. When they were under J. Edgar Hoover, he found various ways to discredit Martin Luther King....They turned the Black Stone Rangers against the Black Panthers in Chicago that (caused) the death of the (BPP) leaders. They got the Huey P. Newton and Eldredge Cleaver factions to kill one another. They have gone after the so-called terrorists with one phony case after another. They first went after immigrants, decimating their numbers in America. Now they are after African American Muslims. Next will most likely be the support groups of mostly white people....These FBI devils are very shrewd and their evil spreads....The murder of a good Muslim will only make it more dangerous to live in America. They know that black people sooner or later will fight back."

"The Ummah is not a 'brotherhood,' it is the Arabic word for 'community.' This group setting up a Muslim state? What a joke. They can hardly set up an annual conference. This information is to cause fear....to cause backlash against Muslims....Let the FBI continue with their tricks, lies and murder. Before long, everyone will see through their veil and they will become the target."

Imam Jamil Al-Amin, Formerly Known as H. Rap Brown

Born Hubert Gerold Brown, he became famously known as H. Rap Brown, a 1960s civil rights activist, social commentator, and chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (succeeding Stokely Carmichael) where he distinguished himself as a charismatic leader and effective organizer. In 1968, he was named minister of justice for the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense that strove for ethnic justice, racial emancipation, and real economic, social, and political equity across gender and color lines.

As a result, he was targeted by federal and state authorities, charged with inciting a riot in Maryland, violating the National Firearms Act, and illegally crossing state lines to skip bail. During his 1970 firearms trial, he disappeared for 17 months and was placed on the FBI's "Ten Most Wanted" list. In late 1971, he reemerged after being arrested and falsely charged with armed robbery in Manhattan. Convicted, he served five years in Attica State Prison.

While there, he converted to Islam and changed his name to Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin. After release, he started an Atlanta mosque and operated a small grocery store and community center. Then in 2000, he was charged with murdering a black police officer and injuring his partner in a gun battle outside his store.

In 2002, he was tried, and despite strong evidence of his innocence, was convicted on 13 counts, including murder, aggravated assault, obstruction, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and sentenced to life imprisonment with no possibility of parole.

At trial, his lawyers argued for a case of mistaken identity, claimed prosecutors were out to get him for decades, and presented a strong defense in his behalf, including:

-- his fingerprints weren't on the murder weapon;

-- he wasn't wounded in the incident even though the arresting deputy said he shot the assailant;

-- he also identified his eyes as gray; Al-Amin's are brown;

-- his attire didn't match clothing the shooter wore;

-- blood found at the scene was discounted and unchecked;

-- potentially exculpatory evidence relating to the sheriff's vehicle was either lost or destroyed;

-- a man named Otis Jackson confessed to the crime; it was ignored, never introduced at trial, days later Jackson recanted, and the defense team never got a chance to interview him; and

-- withheld evidence and proceedings were so controversial that observers believed Brown was convicted pre-trial for his civil rights activism and conversion to Islam; he was clearly a targeted man;

It became clearer when the Georgia Supreme Court agreed that the prosecution committed a grave constitutional error when, in closing arguments, the assistant district attorney directed jurors to consider posed questions relating to Al-Amin's failure to present testimony or evidence. Nonetheless, the Court upheld the verdict.

Afterward, his legal team filed a habeas corpus writ citing gross irregularities, including:

-- not investigating Otis Jackson's confession;

-- denying a change of venue due to negative publicity;

-- prohibiting Al-Amin from testifying in his own defense;

-- eliminating Muslims from the jury pool;

-- dismissing three of his four trial lawyers;

-- prohibiting potentially exculpatory evidence from being introduced;

-- denying favorable testimony in his behalf;

-- withholding discovery from the defense team;

-- denying them a chance to cross-examine an FBI agent relating to his prior misconduct against a Muslim, his misleading and false testimony, and charges that he tampered with evidence; and

-- inflammatory media reports during trial, portraying Al-Amin as a radical extremist.

A Final Comment

As a nationally known civil rights champion and Islamic leader, Al-Amin was a prime FBI COINTELPRO target, the agency's infamous counterintelligence program against political activists, legitimate dissent, independent thought, and non-violent opposition to the Vietnam war, and racial and social injustice.

It continues today against men like Abdullah, his followers, and dozens more like them for their faith, ethnicity, race, activism, prominence, and opposition to government injustice at the wrong time to be Muslim in America.

According to an Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC) December 2007 report on Al-Amin titled, "Prisoners of Faith Campaign Pack," many thousands of "Muslim prisoners of faith around the world" are being held in Muslim and non-Muslim countries, including politicians, human rights activists, students, writers, and others with "one thing in common:" their adherence "to the Islamic belief and way of life."

They're portrayed as "terrorists, inciters of religious hatred or of even trying to change the constitution of the country" where they live. They're vilified and denied their civil rights. In custody, they're neglected, brutalized, tortured, and forgotten as non-persons. As one of them, Al-Amin once said:

"For more than thirty years, I have been tormented and persecuted by my enemies for reasons of race and belief....I seek truth over a lie; I seek justice over injustice; I seek righteousness over the rewards of evil doers; and I love ALLAH more than I love the state."

For others like him, their struggle for equity, social justice, and mutual understanding persists against hostile government oppression. In America as much as anywhere. Its tradition continues.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com

Jewish directors challenge Israel

By Sakhr al-Makhadi at the London Film Festival - November 2, 2009 - Al-Jazeera

A series of controversial Israeli films are provoking outrage and plaudits in equal measure at the London Film Festival.

The best documentary award has gone to one of the year's most controversial films.

Defamation is a polemic by Israeli filmmaker Yoav Shamir. In his expose of America's Anti-Defamation League (ADL), he claims anti-Semitism is being exaggerated for political purposes. He argues that American Jewish leaders travel around the world exploiting the memory of the Holocaust to silence criticism of Israel.

He gets inside the ADL, which claims to be the most powerful lobby group of its type anywhere in the world. With unprecedented access, he travels with them as they meet foreign leaders, and use the memory of the Holocaust to further their pro-Israeli agenda.

At one point, an ADL leader admits to Shamir that "we need to play on that guilt".

Shamir says his film, Defamation, started out as a study of "the political games being played behind the term anti-Semitism".

"It became more a film about perceptions and the way Jews and Israelis choose to see themselves and define themselves - a lot of the time unfortunately choosing the role of eternal victims as a way of life."

Israel's national psyche

He wanted to find out how this mentality has become part of Israel's national psyche.
The film suggests that the attitude is thrust upon children from an early age. School trips to concentration camps in Poland run year-round.

From just 500 children in the 1980s, he claims around 30,000 are now flown to Europe every year.

He discovers that the trips are not designed to educate, but to provoke an emotional reaction. They fly out of Israel euphoric, and end their journey in tears, talking about their shared hatred.

They are accompanied by secret service agents who prevent them from talking to any locals - they are led to believe that most Poles are anti-Semites.

The end result is disturbing. The victim mentality is being used to justify Israel's occupation and colonisation of the West Bank and siege of Gaza.

In the film, one Israeli Jew tells Shamir that she refuses to get upset by Israeli aggression against the Palestinians because "we" faced worse. To her, the Holocaust justifies anything the Israeli army does.

And for Shamir, that is the real danger. "We are experiencing the most right-wing government we've ever had, and there is very little room for discussion. Putting so much focus on hate and the negative, I don't see it as a healthy thing."

In Israel, the film has received a mixed response. "It's kind of a love or hate type of response to the film," Shamir says. "It's very hard to get people to come and watch documentaries in the cinemas in Israel."

Full article

Chilean repression of Mapuche community

Continued aggressions of the Chilean state have led the Arauco Malleco Coordinator of Mapuche Communities in Conflict (CAM), a radical indigenous Mapuche organization, to formally renounce their Chilean citizenship and declared war on the government.

The declaration was issued on Oct. 20, the same day that two trucks belonging to the El Bosque forestry corporation were intercepted by CAM and set on fire in the province of Malleco.

As reported by the Latin American Herald Tribune, “the attacks, which began at 1:10 a.m., came hours after five Mapuches were formally indicted under a Pinochet-era anti-terrorism law for similar assaults carried out Oct. 11 near the city of Victoria.”

The declaration, much more than a symbolic gesture, comes at a time of increasing violence against Mapuche children and youths, particularly over the past three months, when Mapuche communities began reclaiming illegally occupied lands in the region of Araucania.

For instance, according to the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH), on Oct. 16 “a large group of police, for as yet unknown reasons, began to fire pellets and tear gas canisters” in a school in Temucuicui, Araucania. “Several children suffered pellet wounds and had trouble breathing,” reports IPS News.

Hundreds of Mapuche and non-Mapuche activists protested the attack on Oct. 23—including several children, who carried the empty canisters with them as the marched in Temuco, Araucania’s capital. New Tang Dynasty Television reports.

Mapuche delegates also reached out to the United Nations Fund for Children (UNICEF) to “make a clarion call to the… government, civil society, churches, international institutions, world-renowned personalities and millions of volunteers who are responsible for protecting children’s rights.”

UNICEF responded on Oct. 26 by urging the protection of indigenous children and calling for a full and impartial investigation by the government. “What we have now is completely contradictory reports,” states Gary Stahl, the organization’s Chile representative. Nonetheless, “there is a different way to act depending on whether there are children present,” he adds.

IPS news reports on another serious case—”that of a 17-year-old Mapuche youth with a badly injured leg, who was wounded by about 100 pellets allegedly fired by Carabineros (officers) in the area where the land disputes are raging, on Oct. 20.”

“After being shot he was not seen for a week, nor did he contact health services. At his village he was given up for dead. However, he reappeared Monday and was taken to the Traumatology Hospital in Santiago, where the damage to his leg was being assessed, according to local press reports. He said that he had been rabbit hunting when he was shot, that he did not know who shot him, and that he had gone into hiding because he was afraid.”

In another case last week, a group of military police were caught on filmAccording to Aporrea, the beating “stopped only when other police shouted that the press was there and they were being recorded.” beating a Mapuche youth who was trying to find some information about a member of his community who was arrested a week earlier.

When faced with the video, Eros Negron, the general chief of Araucania, said that the carabinero most active in the beating was fired.

At least nine other Mapuche youths were injured this month, including Felipe Marilan Morales, a ten year old boy who was shot in the forehead after the failed eviction of Mapuche from the estate of La Romana, one of dozens of privately-owned estates scattered on Mapuche lands.

Speaking on the reclamation, the Arauco Malleco Coordinator further demanded that the Chilean government cede the Mapuche’s historical territory, lands south of the Bio Bio River, in accordance with the 1825 Treaty of Tapihue.

Historically, the Bio Bio River marked the border separating the Mapuche from the region controlled by the Spanish. The territory did not become a part of the Chilean state until the late 1800’s following the “Pacification of Araucania.”

The territory has been steadily chipped away by multinational companies, farmers and land barons ever since.

More Information

• Stop Violence Against Indigenous Children – UNICEF
• Mapuche women step up
• Mapuche: Land Repatriation Announced by Chile
• Chile extends indigenous rights
• Resounding Denunciation of Mapuche Persecution
• Cop Shot Mapuche in the back
• Chile’s Mapuches Call for Regional Autonomy
• 10-Year Jail Sentence for Chile Cop Who Killed Mapuche Student
• Murder of Young Mapuche Land Rights Defender

Source

Settlers harass Palestinians and steal crops during olive harvest

B'Tselem Video - October 2009 - West Bank

The video shows three events that took place during this year's olive harvest in the West Bank .

In the first incident, documented on 15 October by a volunteer in B'Tselem's camera distribution project, settlers are seen stealing olives from a grove belonging to a resident of al-Mughair village in Ramallah District, near which the Adey Ad illegal outpost has been established. The footage shows two settlers picking the olives and dragging filled sacks to a car. While filming the incident, the volunteer notified the authorities. Half an hour later, soldiers and personnel from the Israeli DCL arrived at the site and arrested the settlers. On 26 October, the investigation file was transferred to the legal division in the Judea and Samaria (SHAI) Police Department, which will decide, based on the evidence, whether to file an indictment.

The second incident also occurred in al-Mughair and was filmed by one of B'Tselem's field researchers. Several days after the complaint was filed regarding the stolen olives, village residents discovered that several dozens of olive trees had been cut in their groves. Residents of other villages in the West Bank also reported olive trees that had been cut or uprooted.

In the third incident, which took place on 19 October in Sinjil, Ramallah District, one of B'Tselem's field workers filmed settlers harassing olive pickers although soldiers were present. According to the Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), residents of the village were also attacked by several dozens of settlers as they attempted to harvest olives. Army forces that were in the area removed the settlers and enabled the Palestinians to proceed with the harvest.

Information gathered so far about this year's harvest indicates that the harvest has been relatively limited in scope, due to the meager crops, and that less harassment of Palestinians by settlers has been reported than in previous years. However, reports have been received of olive trees being cut or uprooted in several areas in the West Bank . In addition, during 2009, the conditions for receiving permits to cross through Separation Barrier have been made more stringent, increasing the difficulty faced by Palestinians who are separated from their land by the Barrier.

Length: 02:52 mins
Source

Ongoing U.S. efforts to protect and coddle Israel

An Israeli columnist issues a scathing indictment of Israel and calls on the U.S. to apply pressure.

By Glenn Greenwald - November 2, 2009

The latest Haaretz column by the outstanding and courageous Israeli columnist, Gideon Levy, is entitled "America, Stop Sucking Up to Israel," and it highlights one of the most bizarre political facts: criticism of Israeli actions is far more tolerated and permitted in Israeli political discourse than it is in America's. It's simply inconceivable that any establishment journalist or national politician would ever echo Levy's scathing indictments of Israel's conduct and his calls for the U.S. to apply serious pressure and even threats to coerce changes in Israeli behavior. After describing the increasingly conciliatory actions towards Israel by the Obama administration in exchange for nothing but obstinance, Levy writes:

Before no other country on the planet does the United States kneel and plead like this. In other trouble spots, America takes a different tone. It bombs in Afghanistan, invades Iraq and threatens sanctions against Iran and North Korea. Did anyone in Washington consider begging Saddam Hussein to withdraw from occupied territory in Kuwait?

But Israel the occupier, the stubborn contrarian that continues to mock America and the world by building settlements and abusing the Palestinians, receives different treatment. Another massage to the national ego in one video, more embarrassing praise in another.

Now is the time to say to the United States: Enough flattery. If you don't change the tone, nothing will change. As long as Israel feels the United States is in its pocket, and that America's automatic veto will save it from condemnations and sanctions, that it will receive massive aid unconditionally, and that it can continue waging punitive, lethal campaigns without a word from Washington, killing, destroying and imprisoning without the world's policeman making a sound, it will continue in its ways.

Illegal acts like the occupation and settlement expansion, and offensives that may have involved war crimes, as in Gaza, deserve a different approach. If America and the world had issued condemnations after Operation Summer Rains in 2006 - which left 400 Palestinians dead and severe infrastructure damage in the first major operation in Gaza since the disengagement - then Operation Cast Lead never would have been launched.

It is true that unlike all the world's other troublemakers, Israel is viewed as a Western democracy, but Israel of 2009 is a country whose language is force. . . . When Clinton returns to Washington, she should advocate a sharp policy change toward Israel. Israeli hearts can no longer be won with hope, promises of a better future or sweet talk, for this is no longer Israel's language. For something to change, Israel must understand that perpetuating the status quo will exact a painful price.

Israel of 2009 is a spoiled country, arrogant and condescending, convinced that it deserves everything and that it has the power to make a fool of America and the world. The United States has engendered this situation, which endangers the entire Mideast and Israel itself. That is why there needs to be a turning point in the coming year - Washington needs to finally say no to Israel and the occupation. An unambiguous, presidential no.

• Continue Reading

It's simply impossible to imagine that sort of harsh and blunt critique being voiced by any establishment political commentator or national politician in the U.S. In fact, one finds the exact opposite trend of the one Levy advocates. As Levy suggests, and as Spencer Ackerman insightfully documents and condemns, the Obama administration appears to be rapidly retreating on what was once its promising and commendable demand that Israel cease all settlement growth. The U.S. is unwilling merely to demand from Israel a cessation of activity which is illegal in the eyes of the entire world and destructive to American interests.

Even worse, the U.S. Congress appears poised -- yet again -- to enact a meaningless though odious Resolution that has no purpose other than to shield Israel from criticism; place ourselves squarely on Israel's side no matter what it does; and once again obstruct war crimes investigations. That Resolution -- co-sponsored by two members of Congress from each party, including supreme AIPAC loyalist Howard Berman, the Democratic Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee -- would advance the repellent through all-too-familiar personal smears against U.N. investigator Richard Goldstone by urging that the U.S. "oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration" of Goldstone's report -- which found both Isarel and Hamas likely guilty of "war crimes" in the war in Gaza -- on the ground that the Report was biased, flawed, one-sided, pre-ordained and false.

It's apparently not enough that the U.S. Government block all efforts to investigate its own war crimes while immunizing its own war criminals. Now the U.S. Congress has decided that they were elected to do the same for Israel.

Article continues with Moyers/Goldstone interview

IOA endorses law confiscating property of anyone resisting occupation

02/11/2009 - 11:15 AM

NAZARETH, (PIC)-- Israel's ministerial committee on legislation has endorsed a draft law allowing the Israeli occupation authority (IOA) to confiscate the property of anyone convicted of "terrorism", a report by the Hebrew radio said on Sunday evening.

The IOA refers to anyone resisting its occupation as a "terrorist".

The broadcast noted that the Likud MP Danny Danon was the one who tabled the draft law in parliament.

Israel is the only place in the world where laws against the international law are being legislated including one that sanctions torture against detainees.