democracynow.org
Stories:
In a move opposed by the United States and Israel, Palestinian leaders have submitted a request to join the International Criminal Court and sign over a dozen other international treaties. The Palestinian Authority says it will seek the prosecution of Israeli officials for war crimes in the Occupied Territories. In retaliation, Israel has halted the transfer of tax revenues needed to pay for Palestinian salaries and public services. The Palestinian Authority opted to join the ICC after the United States and Israel successfully lobbied against a U.N. Security Council measure calling for an end to the Israeli occupation and the establishment of a Palestinian state by 2017. We are joined by two guests: Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies and author of "Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Primer" and "Calling the Shots: How Washington Dominates Today’s United Nations"; and Ali Abunimah, co-founder of The Electronic Intifada and author of "The Battle for Justice in Palestine."
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: In a move opposed by the United States and Israel, Palestinian authorities have submitted a request to join the International Criminal Court and sign over a dozen other international treaties. Riyad Mansour, the chief Palestinian observer at the United Nations, submitted the diplomatic documents on Friday, saying the Palestinian Authority will seek the prosecution of Israeli officials for war crimes in the Occupied Territories.
RIYAD MANSOUR: It is a peaceful option. It is a civilized option. It is an option that anyone who uphold the law should not be afraid of, and it is an option that we are seeking in order to seek justice for all the victims that have been killed by Israel, the occupying power, the last group of them the more than 500 children in Gaza last summer, more than 3,000 children injured and thousand more of civilians killed and injured.
AMY GOODMAN: One day after the Palestinians moved to join the International Criminal Court, Israel announced it would withhold at least $127 million in tax revenue owed to the Palestinian Authority. The money is needed to pay salaries and provide public services. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused the Palestinian Authority of launching a confrontation with Israel.
PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: [translated] The Palestinian Authority has chosen to launch a confrontation with the state of Israel, and we are not sitting idly by. We will not allow the dragging of IDF soldiers and IDF commanders to the International Criminal Court at The Hague. The ones who should face justice are the heads of the Palestinian Authority, who entered an alliance with the Hamas war criminals. IDF soldiers will continue to defend the state of Israel with determination and might, just as they defended us, and we will defend them with the same determination and the same might.
AMY GOODMAN: In Washington, D.C., a State Department spokesperson described the Palestinian move to join the ICC as, quote, "entirely counterproductive," saying it, quote, "badly damages the atmosphere with the very people with whom they ultimately need to make peace." In the West Bank city of Ramallah, PLO official Wassel Abu Youssef said Palestinians would not relinquish their claims under Israeli or U.S. pressure.
WASSEL ABU YOUSSEF: [translated] The Palestinian leadership and the Palestinian people will not give up on our Palestinian core issues: the right to be free and independent, the right of return, as well as a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital. The American administration is also competing with the occupying government by saying it will not send us aid money. This will not break the determination of the Palestinian leadership and people, until we obtain freedom and the independence of Palestine.
AMY GOODMAN: The Palestinian move to join the International Criminal Court came just days after the U.N. Security Council rejected a resolution demanding an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories within three years. Of the 15 members of the U.N. Security Council, only the United States and Australia voted against the measure. But it needed nine votes to pass and only received eight, after Nigeria decided at the last minute to abstain from voting. The Guardian reports both U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called Nigeria’s president, Goodluck Jonathan, to ask him to oppose the measure. The United States was expected to veto the measure if it passed.
To talk more about the latest developments, we’re joined by two guests. In Washington, D.C., Phyllis Bennis is with us, fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. She’s written a number of books, including Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict, as well as Calling the Shots: How Washington Dominates Today’s United Nations. And joining us from Chicago via Democracy Now! video stream, Ali Abunimah is with us, co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, author of the recent book, The Battle for Justice in Palestine.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Ali Abunimah, let’s start with you on the significance of these developments at the United Nations. Begin with the U.N. Security Council vote that did not—that ultimately did not support the Israeli withdrawal from the Palestine territories.
ALI ABUNIMAH: Good morning, Amy. Like many people, I was very relieved that the resolution failed. That might surprise some of your viewers, but the devil is in the detail. This was a very bad resolution, written by the Palestinian Authority without any support from any other Palestinian factions. It’s been condemned by Palestinian political figures and legal experts, because in an attempt to avoid the American veto, it undercut and undermined and watered down very fundamental Palestinian rights. And if this resolution had passed, it would have superseded existing resolutions which are far stronger.
I’ll give you just one example. In your headlines, you said this resolution calls for an end to the Israeli occupation. That’s the headline. But in the small print, it does no such thing. It calls for a withdrawal of Israeli security forces, their replacement with a third-party presence, understood to mean American troops or NATO troops, and it allows for the Israeli settlements to remain behind. So it doesn’t even call for settlements to be dismantled and withdrawn. That’s why this resolution should not have passed and didn’t.
On the other hand, of course, the reason the U.S. opposed it was not out of any concern for Palestinian rights, but out of the Obama administration’s commitment, unfailing commitment, to do everything possible to thwart the Palestinians, no matter how they pursue their struggle, whether through the U.N. or whether through exercising their legitimate right to self-defense and resistance. This is an American administration that exceeds all of its predecessors in its tenacity and zeal in opposing the Palestinians and helping Israel to occupy, dispossess and kill them.
AMY GOODMAN: Speaking last week, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power explained why the U.S. objected to the U.N. resolution on Palestine.
SAMANTHA POWER: Today’s staged confrontation in the U.N. Security Council will not bring the parties closer to achieving a two-state solution. We voted against this resolution not because we are indifferent to the daily hardships or the security threats endured by Palestinians and Israelis, but because we know that those hardships will not cease and those threats will not subside until the parties reach a comprehensive settlement achieved through negotiations.
AMY GOODMAN: Phyllis Bennis, your response to what has taken place and its significance at the United Nations Security Council?
PHYLLIS BENNIS: Thanks, Amy. I think that Ali Abunimah is absolutely right, that this resolution would not have ended the occupation. It was also never going to pass. Whether it was officially with a U.S. veto, if there had been nine votes, or a U.S. no vote as a result of U.S. pressure to make sure there were not nine votes, the U.S. was not going to let this pass.
I think what’s far more significant is the decision of the Palestinians, finally, after a great deal of pressure on the leader of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, to sign the documents to join the International Criminal Court. That ultimately has far more consequence than does these kinds of resolutions in the Security Council. The possibility of the International Criminal Court, which is a weak agency right now—it’s a thoroughly politicized agency, but it’s moving forward in the world, and I think over time we will see the court playing a greater role in international diplomacy, as well as in international jurisdiction over war crimes. The possibility that Israeli officials—and it isn’t only military officials, as Prime Minister Netanyahu indicated; it could also be and would certainly also be political officials as well as military, because things like settlements are war crimes, as well as the direct war crimes committed in Gaza. People like the prime minister, the defense minister, are in the chain of command, so they would also be liable for being brought up on charges. Now, they may say, "Well, that will never happen." Fine. Let Israel join the International Criminal Court. Israel is, of course, one of the outliers, along with the United States and a few others, very few other countries, that have refused to sign and ratify the court, to join the court, to place its own officials under the court’s jurisdiction. If Israel is so convinced that they wouldn’t have anything to fear, let them join and find out.
But the fact that the Palestinians are joining an international institution is important both for the substance and because this U.N. initiative, overall—including, frankly, the Security Council resolution, as far as it went—are major attacks on the legitimacy of the so-called diplomacy, under U.S. control, that has failed for the last 24 years. That’s, I think, very important. It’s put a number of European countries in the position of saying, "We’re no longer going to accept the idea that Washington gets to call the shots in the United Nations on the question of Palestine, that we are no longer going to be able to play an international role, that only the U.S. can determine what is a legitimate or illegitimate move by the Palestinians to obtain freedom and independence and an end to occupation and apartheid." In that context, I think the importance is far more on the level of the willingness of some European countries—France comes to mind—to stand up to U.S. pressure, to say, "You know what? The kind of diplomacy that the U.S. has controlled for so many years has failed. We need a different kind of diplomacy that starts with international law."
AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to break and then come back to this discussion and also talk about the role of Nigeria on the U.N. Security Council. Phyllis Bennis, fellow at Institute for Policy Studies, and Ali Abunimah of The Electronic Intifada. This is Democracy Now! We’ll be back in a minute.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to turn right now to the Fatah response to the vote at the U.N. Security Council. Last week, Palestinian officials criticized the rejection by the U.N. Security Council of a Palestinian resolution calling for the establishment of a Palestinian state. This is Fatah spokesman Ahmad Assaf.
AHMAD ASSAF: [translated] Unfortunately, the Security Council failed in approving the draft resolution calling for the end of the Israeli occupation under a time frame. It happened because the Security Council failed in protecting its goals, on which it was founded, and its principles, which it usually propagates. It happened because there is a great power in this world set to protect and support the Israeli occupation, which represents the highest level of terrorism.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Fatah spokesperson Ahmad Assaf. Our guests are Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies and Ali Abunimah of The Electronic Intifada. Phyllis, what about Nigeria and how this went down, Jordan’s role, as well as Africa?
PHYLLIS BENNIS: Well, what we saw, Amy, on the Security Council was that Jordan—as usual, there was only one Arab country on the Council—Jordan played the role of bringing to the Council the Palestinian draft resolution to try and get a vote. There were a lot of questions, frankly, about why the vote was pushed last week rather than now, because with the new year there are two new members on the Council, Malaysia and Venezuela, who are replacing South Korea and Argentina, making the Security Council significantly more willing to move in a direction pushed by the Palestinians.
AMY GOODMAN: And didn’t Jordan want—
PHYLLIS BENNIS: But the notion that the U.S.—
AMY GOODMAN: Didn’t Jordan want to wait, but the Palestinian Authority wanted to push it forward?
PHYLLIS BENNIS: There are reports of that. I don’t have the inside story on it. I think it’s important not to focus too much on the inside horse-trading issues that go on at all times. What was consistent here was the idea that the U.S. is in a position to pressure other countries, particularly relatively weak and impoverished countries that depend on the U.S. Nigeria is not necessarily impoverished, because of its oil, but its people are certainly impoverished because of legacies of colonialism and war over oil in that country. And one of the things that happened here was we saw the tradition of U.S. pressure on, in this case, another African country—it was Nigeria. The president of Nigeria, Goodluck Jonathan, was called not only by the Israeli leader from whom Nigeria is buying a significant amount of arms, and presumably that arms deal was very much on the agenda of the call from Netanyahu to Goodluck Jonathan, he also was called, though, by Secretary of State Kerry, and there are reports that President Obama himself called Goodluck Jonathan the night before the vote.
Now, that would be consistent with a long-standing U.S. habit, shall we say, of pressuring other countries at the U.N. There’s a long-standing precedent known as the Yemen precedent that stems back to the first Gulf War in 1990, when Yemen was one of only two countries, the other being Cuba, who voted against endorsing the U.S. attack and invasion of Iraq in what turned out to be 1991. And at that time, as soon as the Yemeni ambassador put down his hand after the vote, the U.S. ambassador was at his side saying, "That will be the most expensive no vote you ever cast." And three days later, the U.S. cut its entire aid budget to Yemen. That remark was picked up on a U.N. microphone and broadcast around the world. Since that time, it’s been known as the Yemen precedent, and the U.S. has used it over and over again to pressure, threaten and, in many cases, bribe other countries to do what the U.S. wants. And that’s happened more on the question of Palestine and Israel than any other question at the United Nations.
AMY GOODMAN: And to be clear, they didn’t vote against it, like the U.S. and Australia, but they abstained, which meant—
PHYLLIS BENNIS: They abstained, which—that was the loss from the nine votes required to eight votes, which meant that the U.S. no vote didn’t officially count as a veto, although the difference between a no vote and a veto vote, when the U.S. is still responsible for the failure of the resolution, doesn’t really mean very much.
AMY GOODMAN: Ali Abunimah, the response in the Occupied Territories, what this means, both the U.N. Security Council vote and the ICC, and the attempt to join the ICC?
ALI ABUNIMAH: Well, I can give you my response. I can’t speak for other people. But as I mentioned, there was a broad consensus in Palestinian opinion against the content of the U.N. resolution, which Abbas submitted without Palestinian consensus behind him and which undermined fundamental Palestinian rights.
As for the ICC, justice for the victims of the Israeli-American massacre in Gaza, the Israeli-American settlements in the occupied West Bank and in Jerusalem, and all the aspects of the Israeli-American colonial project in Palestine, Palestinians deserve justice for that. They deserve to bring the perpetrators of these crimes to justice, but the membership of the ICC must not be used as a political bargaining chip the way the illegitimate, unelected Palestinian Authority has used it—one day we’re going to sign, the next day we’re not going to sign. Of course, I don’t trust this Palestinian Authority leadership. And if they get some insignificant promise from the United States, they may well freeze their membership or withdraw their signature or carry out some other maneuver.
The other thing, I would like to respond to something Phyllis said earlier regarding the role of France versus the United States. I think it’s mistake to cast France as the role of hero in this story against the villainous United States at the U.N. Remember, the content of this resolution, which was backed by France, is about guaranteeing Israel’s long-term future as a racist Jewish state in Palestine. The difference between the United States and Israel is not that France supports Palestinian rights and the U.S. opposes them. They only differ on how to secure Israel’s long-term future as an apartheid state. The Obama administration, in practice, supports Netanyahu’s vision of a Greater Israel, where Israel annexes the Occupied Territories, because that’s what Obama supports in practice. He’s doing nothing to prevent that. France believes that Israel should continue to be a racist apartheid state, but only within the 1948 borders, and Palestinians should get a miniature bantusan, shorn of sovereignty, shorn of real independence, in order to allow Israel to continue to claim that it’s a Jewish-majority democracy. That’s the difference between France and the United States. France is not a friend of the Palestinians. It did not support this resolution out of a concern for Palestinian rights.
I think what people should take away from this soap opera at the United Nations is that Palestinians are not going to get justice from Obama, they’re not going to get justice from Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren or whoever next might be coming down the line, they’re not going to get it from the U.N., and they’re not going to get it from the European Union, which continues to arm Israel to commit massacres against Palestinians. They’re going to get it from resistance, legitimate resistance, which includes a global solidarity movement, a critical global solidarity movement, whose major and most effective expression at this moment in history is boycott, divestment and sanctions. One thing people should take away from this is that the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement has never been more necessary, never been more legitimate, and never been more urgent to put an end to this regime of apartheid and terror, which the United States and its allies continue to support in Palestine against millions of Palestinian people.
AMY GOODMAN: On Friday, the United States criticized Palestinian leaders for seeking to join the International Criminal Court. In a statement, State Department spokesperson Jeff Rathke said, quote, "Today’s action is entirely counterproductive and does nothing to further the aspirations of the Palestinian people for a sovereign and independent state. It badly damages the atmosphere with the very people with whom they ultimately need to make peace." Phyllis Bennis, your response to that, as well as to what Ali has just laid out?
PHYLLIS BENNIS: You know, I think Ali is absolutely right that the critical factor right now is the BDS movement globally. I think that the fact of the strength, the rising strength, of the BDS movement, particularly in Europe, is very much the reason for the French decision here. It’s absolutely true that France is not a great friend of the Palestinian people, and they are certainty no heroes—I never said or thought that. But I think that what is true is that the divide, the growing divide, between governments, long-standing allies of the U.S., and their willingness to break with the U.S. on these critical questions is very much a reflection of the rising strength of BDS movements in countries around the world, whether it be South Africa, whether it be throughout Europe or elsewhere. So I think that that—those two things are very much linked.
I think the question of the International Criminal Court is fundamental because of the question of international justice. The idea that somehow peace or justice, in any form, is going to come as a result of pretending that the Palestinians and Israelis come to the table as equals, as if this was Peru and Ecuador, for instance, sitting at a table to resolve a border dispute, that’s not what is going on here. What we have is, on the one hand, the 23rd wealthiest country in the world, the only nuclear-armed country in the Middle East, the fourth most powerful military, by far the strongest military in the region, backed by the world’s sole superpower, on one hand, and on the other side of the table, a stateless population that is militarily occupied by another government, without a state, without a military, without an economy to call its own, without control of its own airspace, its own waters, its own borders, etc. You can’t call those two equal partners for peace because you sit them at the same table. That kind of negotiation is never going to work.
And I think the significance of this new move is to say to the world, that’s over. This kind of forced negotiation on a false premise is over, because it has failed for 24 years, and that what we’re now looking to is an international movement, centered by the social movements of people, like the BDS movement at its core, and that governments will, over time, change in response to the pressure from their own populations. Eventually, when enough governments change, the United Nations will change. We saw that for a brief moment of eight months in the run-up to the war in Iraq, where the U.N. and some governments, for their own opportunist reasons, stood on the side of preventing war, as the charter commands them to do. We may see that over time on the question of Palestine.
Right now, the critical factor is what former U.N. special rapporteur on Palestine, Richard Falk, has called the struggle for legitimacy. Israel is losing the struggle for legitimacy. It’s losing that battle in a global—in the global arena. It’s losing it, critically, here in the United States. And it’s in the context of Israel’s dwindling legitimacy that these moves in the United Nations, whether the Security Council or the International Criminal Court, take place. It’s the loss of legitimacy that is now fundamental to Israel’s position.
AMY GOODMAN: Ali Abunimah, the U.S. media’s coverage of this, do you think it reflects the differences within Palestine, the differences of opinion?
ALI ABUNIMAH: No, of course it doesn’t. You know, the routine mistake that’s made is to equate the unelected, Israeli-backed, U.S.-financed Palestinian Authority with the Palestinians. And that’s a big mistake, because the Palestinian Authority acts despite the Palestinians. This is a Palestinian Authority engaged in a massive political crackdown against its opponents at home. This is a Palestinian Authority that is directly complicit in the ongoing siege of Gaza. We haven’t seen Mahmoud Abbas and his cohort put a fraction of the effort into ending the siege of Gaza that continues to kill people there, children dying in house fires because there’s only electricity three hours a day now in Gaza, in many parts of Gaza. Instead, they put all their effort into this mirage of a U.N. resolution that only showed their weakness domestically and internationally. And what Palestinians are saying is that, you know, after all these years of struggle and suffering, they’re not prepared to give up their most basic rights for nothing more than a bantustan, which isn’t even on offer.
And, Amy, if I may, I want to respond to the clip of the U.S. official—I didn’t catch his name—that you played, about—
AMY GOODMAN: Jeff Rathke, State Department.
ALI ABUNIMAH: Yes, Jeff Rathke of the State Department, about how joining the ICC doesn’t help the atmosphere. I’ll tell you what didn’t help the atmosphere, was when, during the summer massacre in Gaza, when dozens of people were being killed every day by Israeli bombs, when entire neighborhoods were being destroyed and carpet-bombed by Israeli shelling, when, during that time, the Obama administration, President Obama, decided to resupply the Israeli military with bombs so it could continue to murder people in Gaza. To put it mildly, that didn’t help the atmosphere. Palestinians do not want to hear lectures from the American administration that helped and continues to help to murder them and steal their land. The U.S. administration of Barack Obama has nothing to say that Palestinians need to listen to.
AMY GOODMAN: Ali Abunimah, I want to thank you for being with us, co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, author of the recent book, The Battle for Justice in Palestine, speaking to us from Chicago. And Phyllis Bennis, fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, among her books, Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict and Calling the Shots: How Washington Dominates Today’s United Nations, she’s speaking to us from Washington, D.C.
When we come back, we’ll be joined by attorney Scott Horton, his book, Lords of Secrecy: The National Security Elite and America’s Stealth Foreign Policy. Stay with us.
|
At least nine Pakistanis were killed Sunday in a U.S. drone strike in North Waziristan, the first reported drone strike of 2015. News accounts of the strike are based on unnamed Pakistani government and security officials. The Obama administration has said nothing so far. For years, the United States did not even publicly acknowledge the existence of the drone strikes. The drone program is just one example of the national security state’s reliance on secret operations. The recent Senate Intelligence Committee report revealed another example: the shadowy network of overseas CIA black sites where the United States held and tortured prisoners. The report also noted the CIA shrouded itself in a cloak of secrecy keeping policymakers largely in the dark about the brutality of its detainee interrogations. The agency reportedly deceived the White House, the National Security Council, the Justice Department and Congress about the efficacy of its controversial interrogation techniques. We are joined by a guest who has closely followed the debate over national security and secrecy: Scott Horton, a human rights attorney and contributing editor at Harper’s Magazine, whose new book is "Lords of Secrecy: The National Security Elite and America’s Stealth Foreign Policy."
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: At least nine Pakistanis were killed Sunday in a U.S. drone strike in North Waziristan. It was the first reported U.S. drone strike of 2015. News accounts of the strike are based on unnamed Pakistani government and security officials. The Obama administration has said nothing so far.
For years, the United States did not even publicly acknowledge the existence of the drone strikes. The drone program is just one example the national security state’s reliance on secret operations. The recent Senate Intelligence Committee report revealed another example: the shadowy network of overseas CIA black sites where the U.S. held and tortured prisoners. The report also noted the CIA shrouded itself in a cloak of secrecy, keeping policymakers largely in the dark about the brutality of its prisoner interrogations. The agency reportedly deceived the White House, the National Security Council, the Justice Department and Congress about the efficacy of its controversial interrogation techniques.
Our next guest has closely followed the debate over national security and secrecy. Scott Horton is a human rights attorney, contributing editor at Harper’s Magazine, lecturer at Columbia Law School. He’s out this week with a new book; it’s called Lords of Secrecy: The National Security Elite and America’s Stealth Foreign Policy.
Scott Horton, welcome to Democracy Now!
SCOTT HORTON: Great to be with you, and happy new year.
AMY GOODMAN: Happy new year to you. Who are the lords of secrecy?
SCOTT HORTON: The lords of secrecy are the leaders of the nation’s national security and intelligence institutions. They’re the people who have the power to create secrets under American law, and they use this power to enhance their own position in Washington and to seize the ability to make critical decisions about national security matters, that used to be made as part of our democratic process.
AMY GOODMAN: Mike Gravel, the former Alaska senator who read the Pentagon—or put the Pentagon Papers into the record, making them public, called on Mark Udall, the outgoing Colorado senator—though it could be any senator, for example, like Senator Wyden of Oregon, who’s also expressed deep concern about the torture report and intelligence—to make the whole report public. Your thoughts on this?
SCOTT HORTON: I think that’s an important next step. I would say the entire report needs to be public, although I think even those advocating that would agree that there would probably be some redactions of names of individual personnel, for instance, names of countries and of some sites. But I would go beyond that, and I’d say also the Panetta report needs to be made public. That is the independent document that was prepared inside the CIA as the Senate Intelligence Committee was preparing its study, which reaches, on the basis of the same materials, exactly the same conclusions and shows that even the CIA does not believe what is being claimed in its name by Director Panetta, as well as by the former directors, Tenet and Hayden.
AMY GOODMAN: Last month, outgoing Democratic Senator Udall called for a purge of top CIA officials implicated in the abuses and the ensuing cover-up, including the current director, John Brennan. In stark language, Udall accused the CIA of lying.
SEN. MARK UDALL: The CIA has lied to its overseers in the public, destroyed and tried to hold back evidence, spied on the Senate, made false charges against our staff, and lied about torture and the results of torture. And no one has been held to account. ... There are right now people serving in high-level positions at the agency who approved, directed or committed acts related to the CIA’s detention and interrogation program. It’s bad enough not to prosecute these officials, but to reward or promote them and risk the integrity of the U.S. government to protect them is incomprehensible. The president needs to purge his administration of high-level officials who were instrumental to the development and running of this program.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s outgoing Democratic Senator Mark Udall. Do you think John Brennan should be fired? Do you think George Bush, Dick Cheney, George Tenet and others should be put on trial?
SCOTT HORTON: Well, I’ll start just with the CIA and the senior leadership of the CIA. About a hundred years ago, a famous German sociologist, Max Weber, wrote a thesis in which he said that national security bureaucracies will use secrecy to cover up their mistakes and errors, and as a result, incompetent people will invariably rise to the top. And this is a reason why the use of secrecy has to be checked very carefully. And I think Udall is correct, because we see this very, very clearly in what’s happened within our CIA over the course of the last 10 years. People who were involved in this torture and black sites program rose absolutely to the top of the agency, and they’re still there. And that’s shocking. I think had the public known, or had even most of the senior leadership in Washington known, what they did and their mistakes, they never could have achieved these positions. So, I think it’s obviously the case that there should be a review of the senior echelons of the agency to remove those who made serious errors and who broke the law.
And I think there’s a very, very serious question about John Brennan. He may or may not have been involved in the program—he certainly tells us he wasn’t—but he has misled the president and the Congress about what’s going on, and in responding to the Senate committee report, he strode to a podium at the CIA and shoveled an amazing load of falsehoods, I mean obviously untruthful statements, in response. That’s just shocking conduct that really should not be tolerated.
And as for Dick Cheney and George Bush, I really don’t think I can add anything to what Colonel Wilkerson and Richard Clarke have said. I mean, I think if you look at the report, it provides very persuasive evidence that torture was used to produce false evidence to justify the invasion of Iraq. That’s buried in footnotes in the report, but it’s there. It’s very, very clear. And that’s a shocking, it’s a humiliating fact for the United States, and it’s a fact that should have consequences.
AMY GOODMAN: Over the weekend, nine Pakistanis were killed, as far as we know, in yet another drone strike, perhaps the first of 2015, though we don’t absolutely know this. Talk about drones and the art of stealth warfare.
SCOTT HORTON: Well, I think that the use of drones are—it’s very significant. It points to the way we’ve redirected our entire attitude towards waging war today. We prefer covert war. We give the CIA a greater and greater role in waging this war. The CIA has become the opposite of what it was established to be in 1947, which is an intelligence analysis shop. Now it’s focused very heavily on operations, and many of them sustained, like this drone war, which is a 10-year war.
Now, the CIA gets to exercise that control by saying everything is secret, it’s covert, it can’t be discussed publicly. And as a result of saying that, the American people actually know much less about what’s going on in Pakistan and about the strikes and the consequence of the strikes than people in Pakistan know or even people in Europe and other nations know. And that’s because of the American media’s hesitancy to report on it. So, we have not had the sort of policy discussion that we really should be having in this country about whether the use of drones in Pakistan is effective or whether it makes sense in terms of U.S. foreign policy.
And I think the case against drones is a very, very powerful case, certainly in the case of Pakistan, because in the bottom line what you’ve seen since the drone war began is a transition in public opinion in Pakistan where the entire political spectrum is united against the United States, really an unbelievable feat for the U.S. to have accomplished. So we’ve turned a major nuclear power against us. And whereas these terrorist groups were operating at the margins in tribal society with friction with many of the tribal leaders, we have allowed them to consolidate their relationship with the tribals by striking these areas and killing a large number and wounding a large number of people who are innocent or not connected to the terrorists. So it’s caused a bonding. So, that’s all unforeseen consequences, but foreseeable consequences. And a public debate probably would lead to a decision to discontinue this operation.
AMY GOODMAN: You write about the path to quasi-war, Libya and Syria. What’s happening today?
SCOTT HORTON: Well, I think the most disturbing thing overall is the way the country now processes a case for a new war. And I discuss at some length what happened with respect to Libya in 2011 and what’s happened repeatedly now with respect to Syria. Historically, the administration would make a case for war. The president would go on television with an Oval Office address and explain why he thinks operations are correct. Congress would have debates and would vote support or vote its opposition to the war effort.
And what we have now is a president, a White House, that wants to avoid this sort of framing—we do not get these sort of Oval Office speeches from President Obama anymore—and a Congress that uses this as a political game, so people want to score partisan points off of it one way or the other. But Congress does not engage in its important deliberative function. So, the democratic process of decision making about war and peace has simply been short-circuited.
AMY GOODMAN: Speaking to NBC’s Meet the Press last month after the Senate torture report was released, former Vice President Dick Cheney said he would do it all again.
VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY: With respect to trying to define that as torture, I come back to the proposition torture was what the al-Qaeda terrorists did to 3,000 Americans on 9/11. There is no comparison between that and what we did with respect to enhanced interrogation. ... It worked. It worked now. For 13 years we’ve avoided another mass casualty attack against the United States. We did capture bin Laden. We did capture an awful lot of the senior guys of al-Qaeda who were responsible for that attack on 9/11. I’d do it again in a minute.
AMY GOODMAN: "I’d do it again in a minute," Vice President Cheney said.
SCOTT HORTON: Well, I think, you know, that interview, in my mind, was really striking for the ineffectiveness with which questioning was conducted. You saw no follow-up from Chuck Todd to these statements, even though it’s the same statements that Cheney has made over and over again, in which he assumes that torture techniques are effective when in fact all the evidence shows exactly the opposite, and in which he acts with an attitude that is expressed by the legal term "depravity." So, depravity in law means total indifference to serious harm that occurs to innocent people as a result of your conduct. And, of course, he was asked specifically by Todd about the case of Gul Rahman, a person who was picked up as a result of mistaken identity, a completely innocent person, and who was tortured to death in Afghanistan in CIA custody. And what was the response of Cheney? He’d do it again in a minute, and all this is justified by 9/11. Of course, that’s utter nonsense. It’s also morally reprehensible nonsense. And the fact that Vice President Cheney, former Director Hayden, Jose Rodriguez and similar people command so much of the airtime in the United States to discuss this issue, in my mind, is amazing. They command it. They’ve had the lion’s share for many, many months now. And we see ineffective questioning. And we don’t see their statements being balanced by criticism—by critics in any effective way.
AMY GOODMAN: Are CIA agents, officials, afraid to go abroad now?
SCOTT HORTON: I think those—and I have recently interviewed two CIA agents who were involved in the program, who tell me that they have been advised by the CIA’s legal counsel office that they should not leave the country. So I think there’s obvious serious legal risk for anyone who was involved in this program in traveling abroad, but particularly those who were involved in running the black site stations in Poland, for instance, which is under criminal investigation right now, or who were involved in the El-Masri operation.
AMY GOODMAN: Scott, you have been looking at these issues in deep detail for years. What surprised you in the torture report?
SCOTT HORTON: I wouldn’t say anything particularly surprised me. In fact, it was confirmation of what we’d seen before, in fact confirmation that actually the situation was worse than we had ever suspected before, consistently. But if anything surprised me a bit, it was the role of the media, because one thing the Senate committee did an excellent job of was research the way the CIA had interacted with and manipulated the media, including some very prominent journalists. Doug Jehl, for instance, a well-known national security writer from The New York Times, now editor at The Washington Post, comes up repeatedly in the report, as do many others. And what we saw was a repeated pattern in which the CIA fed them false information in the form of leaks. I think this is a huge problem with national security reporting in the United States, generally, this idea of pseudo-leaks that are put out by the CIA. While the CIA is telling the courts, "Don’t release the actual files, for national security reasons," it puts out adulterated or falsified versions to ostensibly credible reporters.
AMY GOODMAN: What needs to be done?
SCOTT HORTON: I think what needs to be done is a lot more information needs to be in the public sector. So, right now, we’re just drowning in this sea of secrets. There’s a need for much more information in real time to be available, so that people can be well informed and can have a good, meaningful, consequential discussion of these many issues.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, thank you for helping to inform us with your new book, Lords of Secrecy: The National Security Elite and America’s Stealth Foreign Policy, Scott Horton, human rights attorney, contributing editor at Harper’s Magazine.
|
Thousands Attend Funeral of NYPD Officer Wenjian Liu
Thousands gathered in New York City on Sunday for the funeral of Wenjian Liu, one of the two police officers killed in a targeted ambush last month. Liu’s widow, Pei Xia Chen, paid tribute to her husband.
Pei Xia Chen: "The caring son, a loving husband and a loyal friend, you are an amazing man. Even though you left us early, I believe that he is still with us. His spirit will continue to look after us. He will keep an eye over us so as to protect us. Wenjian is my hero."
NYPD Officers Turn Backs on Mayor de Blasio in Latest Act of Protest
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio spoke at the funeral of Wenjian Liu, one of the two police officers killed last month, saying the whole city is heartbroken over the police officers’ killings.
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio: "All of our city is heartbroken today. We’ve seen it over these last two weeks. We’ve seen the pain that people feel, from all walks of life, a sense of appreciation for the sacrifices of this family and of the Ramos family, their understanding — the people who have never worn a uniform — of how many dangers our men and women in uniform face and what it means for their families. All of this city is feeling the pain right now, and all of this city wants to lift up the Liu family and the Ramos family."
As de Blasio spoke, scores of police officers outside the service again turned their backs on him, as they had previously at the funeral of NYPD Officer Rafael Ramos and at the hospital where the two officers were taken after the shooting. The officers’ collective snub came despite orders from Police Commissioner Bill Bratton that they not turn their backs. It was the latest in the NYPD’s protests against de Blasio over his comments on police brutality and racial profiling. Late last month officers launched a "virtual work stoppage," reducing or halting summonses, tickets and arrests.
NYC Protesters Stage "Die-in" outside Fox News
As NYPD officers continue their protests of New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, actions against police brutality and racial profiling continue nationwide. In New York City, a group of demonstrators staged a "die-in" Friday outside the Manhattan studios of Fox News.
Allen Arthur: "We are protesting specifically the treatment of the cases of police brutality in New York and around the country by right-wing media organizations. But that extends to all major corporate media networks, which operate on a system of profit, not on issues of justice."
Diane Leary: "We want accountability. We want fair news, which Fox does not provide at all, with the most recent incident being that they used audio soundbites over our protesting. They say that we were saying horrible things about NYPD, and that is not what we’re out here for. We’re not against all police. We just want accountability for the bad ones. So we are here demanding fair and justified news coverage."
Death of Mentally Ill Black Woman in Cleveland Police Custody Ruled a Homicide
In Ohio, the death of a mentally ill African-American woman in police custody has been ruled a homicide. Tanisha Anderson’s family had called the police for help as she suffered from a mental health episode in November. A coroner found Tanisha Anderson died "as a result of being physically restrained in a prone position by Cleveland police." Anderson suffered from heart disease, which was also listed as a factor in her death. Her family wants an independent prosecutor to investigate.
Israel Withholds Palestinian Revenues over ICC Court Bid
Israel has halted the transfer of tax revenues to the Palestinian Authority in retaliation for its bid to join the International Criminal Court. On Friday, Palestinian officials submitted documents to join the ICC in a move opposed by both Israel and the United States. Palestinian U.N. Ambassador Riyad Mansour said the PA will seek the prosecution of Israeli officials for war crimes in the Occupied Territories.
Riyad Mansour: "It is a peaceful option. It is a civilized option. It is an option that anyone who uphold the law should not be afraid of, and it is an option that we are seeking in order to seek justice for all the victims that have been killed by Israel, the occupying power, the last group of them the more than 500 children in Gaza last summer, more than 3,000 children injured and thousand more of civilians killed and injured."
In response, the Israeli government is holding up tens of millions of dollars it has collected on the PA’s behalf as the occupier of the Palestinian territories. The money is needed to pay salaries and provide public services. The Palestinian Authority opted to join the ICC after the United States and Israel successfully lobbied against a U.N. Security Council measure calling for an end to the Israeli occupation and the establishment of a Palestinian state by 2017. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas says he is discussing plans to resubmit the statehood resolution despite the threat of a U.S. veto.
U.S. Drone Strike Reportedly Kills 9 in Pakistan
A U.S. drone strike in Pakistan has reportedly killed nine people. The victims were described as foreign militants in the North Waziristan tribal region.
At Least 24 Killed in Shelling of Afghan Wedding
Around two dozen civilians were killed in Afghanistan last week after shelling struck a wedding party in Helmand province. The deaths came amidst reported fighting between Afghan forces and Taliban militants, just days after the Afghan military took over formal security control from the U.S.-led NATO occupation force. The Afghan military says it is investigating.
Egypt Court Orders Retrial of Imprisoned Al Jazeera Journalists
An Egyptian court has ordered a retrial of three Al Jazeera journalists jailed for over one year. Peter Greste, Mohamed Fahmy and Baher Mohamed were convicted on terrorism charges including "spreading false news" in support of the Muslim Brotherhood, deemed by the government a "terrorist group." On Thursday, Egypt’s Court of Cassation overruled the original conviction,
citing procedural flaws. But the three will remain behind bars until their case is reheard. After the ruling, family members of Greste and Fahmy called on the Egyptian government to release and deport them to their home countries.
Andrew Greste: "Now that Peter is essentially an innocent man, he’s not a convict anymore, it does allow for some room to move and for steps to be taken for [Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi] to step in and enact his presidential powers and deport him."
Marwa Omara: "I can’t even imagine that he will stay for a year in prison. His lawyer, Amal Clooney, just applied to the Egyptian presidency and the Egyptian prosecutor for Mohamed to be deported to Canada and be treated as a Canadian citizen and to continue the trial there. I’m still waiting for a miracle to happen."
U.S. Expands North Korea Sanctions as Firm Challenges Hacking Claims
The United States has expanded sanctions against North Korea following the recent hack of the media giant Sony Pictures. On Friday, President Obama signed an executive order targeting North Korean entities and individuals in what the White House called a first step in its retaliation. North Korea has denied responsibility for the hack, which released tens of thousands of Sony emails and files. The new sanctions come as private experts are raising doubts about North Korea’s responsibility. The security firm Norse says the attack could have been the work of a former Sony employee working with pro-piracy "hacktivists." Norse reportedly briefed the FBI last week. But the FBI says it stands by its assessment North Korea was behind the hack.
FBI Aiding Mexican Investigators with Search for Missing Students
The FBI has reportedly begun helping Mexican authorities with an investigation into the disappearance of 43 students in the southern state of Guerrero. So far the remains of only one student have been identified after authorities say police turned the students over to members of a local gang, who killed them and burned their bodies. NBC News reports U.S. scientists are helping to analyze forensic evidence. Meanwhile, Mexican authorities have arrested 10 more local police officers, bringing the total number of people arrested to about 90, most of them police. Last week, parents and colleagues of the missing students were honored in Mexico’s southernmost state of Chiapas by Zapatistas, who were marking the 21st anniversary of their uprising against the Mexican government.
Al-Qaeda Suspect Seized from Libya Dies Ahead of U.S. Trial
A Libyan al-Qaeda suspect snatched from the streets of Tripoli by U.S. forces has died in New York just over a week before he was due to stand trial. Abu Anas al-Libi was accused of helping plan the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa. He was captured in Tripoli in 2013 and interrogated on a naval ship at sea, before being brought to New York where he was due to face trial next week. He died on Friday of complications from liver surgery. Libi was ill with hepatitis C at the time of his capture. His arrest sparked protests in Libya and pressure on the beleaguered Libyan government.
Jury Selection Begins in Boston Marathon Bombing Trial
Jury selection begins today in the trial of Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Three people were killed and 264 were wounded when a pair of homemade bombs exploded near the race’s finish line. Tsarnaev faces 30 federal counts, including the bombing of a public place, malicious destruction of public property, and use of a weapon of mass destruction resulting in death. He is accused of plotting the attacks with his older brother, Tamerlan, who died in a firefight with police. Federal prosecutors are seeking the death penalty, a rarity for a federal case.
Thousands of Undocumented Immigrants Apply for Driver’s Licenses in California
Thousands of undocumented immigrants lined up across California on Friday to obtain driver’s licenses for the first time. A law approved in late 2013 makes California the most populous state to provide driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants. The measure drew wide support from police officials and insurance companies as well as immigrants’ rights groups. A Department of Motor Vehicles spokesperson welcomed the law’s implementation.
Armando Botello: "This is a very, very important day for DMV and for California in general, because this is the first day that people who are undocumented residents of California are able to obtain their license in a legal manner because of the implementation of AB60, the law that allows them to obtain a license."
Judge to Decide on Release of Grand Jury Docs in Garner Case
A judge in New York is expected to decide today whether to release documents considered by the Staten Island grand jury that chose not to indict NYPD officer Daniel Pantaleo for the chokehold death of unarmed African American Eric Garner. Garner’s family has sued to have witness testimony, the full medical examiner’s report and other records released. Garner died after Pantaleo wrestled him to the ground and officers piled on top of him while he repeatedly said, "I can’t breathe." The prosecutor who failed to secure a grand jury indictment in the case, Daniel Donovan, has said he is considering running for the House seat being vacated today by Congressmember Michael Grimm.
Former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo Dies at 82
Former New York Governor Mario Cuomo has died at the age of 82. Cuomo served three terms as Democratic governor between 1983 and 1995. He died just hours after his son, current New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, was sworn in for a second term.
____________________________
"Climate Deniers, Like Big Tobacco, Thrive Behind a Smoke Screen of Doubt" by Amy Goodman
It has been just over 50 years since U.S. Surgeon General Luther Terry released the groundbreaking report, “Smoking and Health.” The report concluded, “Cigarette smoking is a health hazard of sufficient importance in the United States to warrant appropriate remedial action.” The tobacco industry intensified its campaign to defend smoking, funding bogus groups and junk science. Now, a similar war on the truth is being waged by the fossil-fuel industry to deny the science of climate change.“Doubt is our product,” states a 1969 memo from the tobacco giant Brown and Williamson, “since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public.” Brown and Williamson was a member of “Big Tobacco,” along with Philip Morris USA, R.J. Reynolds, Lorillard Tobacco Company, U.S. Tobacco, Liggett Group, and American Tobacco. In 1994, the CEOs of these seven companies lied before Congress, claiming that nicotine was not addictive—even though secret research conducted by their corporations proved they knew otherwise. The image of the seven executives with their right hands in the air, swearing an oath to tell the truth, became an iconic image of a deceitful, deadly industry.
By the mid-1990s, states began suing tobacco companies to recover the billions of dollars they were spending to care for smoking-related illnesses. By November 1998, the cases had been settled under the “Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement,” in which the companies agreed to pay to the states $206 billion over 25 years. They also agreed, importantly, to stop marketing tobacco products to children. Much of the settlement has been spent to educate the public, especially children, about the life-threatening impacts of smoking.
In 1999, the federal government filed a lawsuit against Big Tobacco under RICO, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The Justice Department alleged that “defendants have engaged in and executed—and continue to engage in and execute—a massive 50-year scheme to defraud the public, including consumers of cigarettes.” Despite these domestic legal losses, Big Tobacco still thrives globally, using mechanisms like the World Trade Organization to defeat anti-smoking measures in other countries as impediments to “free trade.” And they are still researching ways to hook new smokers on nicotine, most recently with e-cigarettes.
Today, the fossil-fuel industry creates a smoke screen of doubt, just like Big Tobacco. Greenpeace USA published a report in 2013, “Dealing in Doubt,” that maps out the history of the climate-denial industry, with its key participants and its funders. Interestingly, there is a direct link between Big Tobacco and the climate deniers. Many of the older climate science denialists got their start as hired guns for Big Tobacco, arguing against the threats posed by secondhand smoke.
These climate “skeptics” are scattered throughout an assortment of so-called free-market think tanks, including Americans for Prosperity, the Cato Institute, the American Petroleum Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and The Heartland Institute. Guided by global public-relations firms like Hill and Knowlton, these groups mount media campaigns to challenge respected climate-change reports, with little or no scientific backing to their claims. While fossil-fuel giants like ExxonMobil traditionally funded these denial groups, negative publicity has driven the funders into the shadows. For example, the Koch brothers, Charles and David, who make their billions of dollars from fossil fuel and aggressively fund efforts to block regulation, in addition to directly funding groups, also mask donations. They and others make charitable contributions to a nonprofit shell called Donors Trust and its partner organization, Donors Capital Fund, which then pass the funds on to the denial groups, giving anonymity to the original donors.
The Kochs and other fossil-fuel interests also pour money into our elections, which is one reason why the U.S. Senate shifted to Republican control last November. Consequently, one key Senate committee that deals directly with climate change will now be chaired by Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe. Inhofe claims human-induced climate change is a hoax, and has compared the Environmental Protection Agency to the Gestapo.
Like tobacco’s impacts on health, climate science is settled. Close to 2,000 scientists who sit on the U.N.‘s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have produced volumes documenting the grave threat to the climate from the current rate of human-generated carbon emissions. The world’s leaders will gather in Paris next December, hoping to commit to a binding agreement that will lower emissions and limit the average global temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).
The climate-denial industry will be working full speed to derail any progress, marketing its primary product: doubt. Denialists were just blowing smoke back then for Big Tobacco, as they are now for Big Oil and Coal. This time, the consequences of their professional lying on climate could easily spell death and disaster for billions of us here on planet Earth.
Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.
Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 1,200 stations in North America. She is the co-author of “The Silenced Majority,” a New York Times best-seller.
© 2014 Amy Goodman
Distributed by King Features Syndicate
____________________________
207 W 25th Street, 11th Floor
New York, New York 10001 United States
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment