Mondoweiss Online Newsletter

NOVANEWS

• Scott Brown tries to score points on Elizabeth Warren by calling on Harvard to cancel One State conference this weekend

• Hana Shalabi vs Israel: Palestinian political prisoner on hunger strike against administrative detention

• In 45 minutes with Obama, Goldberg asks repeatedly about Iran, nothing about Palestinians

• If you name your group ‘Emergency Committee for Israel,’ do you get to call people bigots when they say you’re an ‘Israel Firster’?

• ‘Under Attack’: the Golani Brigade’s treatment of Palestinians in Al-Khalil/Hebron

• J Street’s call for Iran diplomacy earns ire of Jewish establishment

• The NDAA — we are all Josef K now

• The last time a Democratic president took on Benjamin Netanyahu…

Scott Brown tries to score points on Elizabeth Warren by calling on Harvard to cancel One State conference this weekend

Mar 02, 2012

Adam Horowitz

From the Boston Globe:

Republican US Senator Scott Brown is calling on Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government to cancel a conference on a “one-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“I want to condemn in the strongest possible terms Harvard’s sponsorship of a conference exploring a ‘one-state solution’ to the Israel-Palestinian conflict,” he said in a statement. “This is dangerous thinking that gives comfort to Israel’s enemies who view the ‘one-state solution’ as a euphemism for eliminating Israel as a Jewish state. Harvard may have a right to do this, but that doesn’t make it right to do it. The University should cancel this conference.”

The Globe reported this morning that the conference has drawn criticism from the Anti-Defamation league, which said it has dangerous implications for Israel. The ADL has not called on Harvard to cancel the conference, but has instead asked Harvard President Drew Faust to denounce its theme.

The conference organizer, Ahmed Moor, a first-year student, told the Globe that the conference is intended to discuss ways that all residents of the region enjoy human rights. The Kennedy School told the Globe that the conference is student organized, but received modest funding from the school’s student government and the event’s website will use the school’s name and logo.

Brown, facing a reelection challenge from Elizabeth Warren, has made the Democrat’s ties to Harvard University a centerpiece in his strategy to label her an out-of-touch elitist. Warren teaches at Harvard Law School.

Brown even made a reference to elitism in his in his statement attacking the conference.

“Academic elites need to understand that their ideas have real world consequences well beyond the comforts of the ivory tower, and the last thing Israel needs is Harvard legitimizing a terribly misguided idea,” he said.

Warren’s campaign, in a statement, would not say whether she agrees with calls to denounce or cancel the conference.

Hana Shalabi vs Israel: Palestinian political prisoner on hunger strike against administrative detention

Mar 02, 2012

Allison Deger

Protesters supporting hunger striker Hana Shalabi (Photo: Alternative Information Center)

Today Hana Shalabi entered her 16th day of hunger strike against Israeli administrative detention.This is Shalabi’s second round of administrative detention; she was held without charge from 2009-2011 in Israeli administrative detention. Last October Shalabi was released through a prisonerexchange between Israel and Hamas.

Wednesday, the hunger striker was scheduled to see a judge at Ofer Military Court. However, Shalibi and her attorney were banned; the hearing took place without Shalabi, and the judge ruled to postpone a decision on the hunger striker’s release.  The next hearing is set for March 3, 2011, when an Israeli intelligence official will be present. Neither Shalabi nor her attorney is permitted to attend the hearing.

 

Hana Yahya Shalabi is 30 years old and is one of nine children.  Before her arrest she was living with her parents, who are also on hunger strike, in a village near Jenin. Shalabi’s parents began their hunger strike on 23 February.

In addition to family and legal support, Shalabi’s case is somewhat of an internet cause, akin to Khader Adnan, who is also in Israeli administrative detention. Adnan recently ended a 66-day hunger strike and gained international recognition through a Twitter campaign calling for his release.

Yesterday, Palestinians and solidarity activists tweeted with the hashtag #HanaVsIsrael15Days, in order to build awareness for Shalabi and Israel’s practice of administrative detention.  The hashtag trended globally around 2pm EST.

Screen shot from March 3, 2012 12pm.

Shalabi was first placed in administrative detention following a September 2009 arrest. The prisoner legal rights group Addameer describes the late night raid:

During the search, one of the soldiers forcibly removed framed pictures of Hana’s brother Samer, who was killed by the Israeli army in 2005, tore them apart and walked over the pieces in front of the entire family. The soldiers then started shouting and cursing at Hana and her family members. When Hana’s father attempted to intervene and protect his daughter from continued verbal abuse, one Israeli soldier pushed him in the chest with the butt of a rifle. Clearly distressed, Hana’s mother fainted at this scene. The soldiers then handcuffed Hana in painfully tight shackles around her wrists and placed her under arrest.
Hana was then transferred by military jeep to Salem Detention Center. During the transfer, Hana’s abaya, a traditional Muslim religious dress covering the entire body worn by women over home clothes, came open, uncovering her clothes and parts of her body. Some of the male soldiers accompanying her in the jeep took pictures of her at this point, consciously exploiting her situation, knowing she would feel offended and humiliated by such photos. Upon arrival to Salem Detention Center, a doctor gave Hana a quick physical examination. Immediately after the examination, Hana was transferred to Kishon Detention Center inside Israel where her interrogation formally began.

According to Addameer, Shalabi was questioned from “10:00 a.m. until the late evening hours,” while in solitary confinement. Her six square meter cell contained no windows or sunlight. On one occasion, after refusing to confess, Israeli soldiers harassed her. From Addameer:

The interrogators responded by slapping her on her face and beating her on her arms and hands. The guards then took her back to her cell where they tied her to the bed frame and continued humiliating her by taking pictures of her laying in that position.

Addameer filed a complaint over Shalabi’s treatment, which was promptly dismissed due to “lack of evidence.”

Rearrested political prisoner

The night of Shalabi’s re-arrest approximately 50 Israeli soldiers with dogs raided  her family’s home. Addameer again chronicled the arrest:

The IOF [Israeli Occupation Forces] then proceeded to brutally threaten and abuse Hana and her family. First, Hana’s brother heard the intelligence officer say, ‘Hana must die.’ Next, one of the soldiers grabbed her hand and pulled her. Hana objected and told him that if they needed to hold her, they should bring a female soldier to do it. He completely disregarded her and when she tried to remove his hand, he began to beat her upper body and slap her in the face. Hana’s brother, Omar, attempted to jump in front of her to protect her, but the soldiers attacked him and beat him with their guns. A female soldier was then brought to detain her. Hana was blindfolded and put in a military jeep, where she was made to sit on the ground on her knees.

Shalabi is the fifth Palestinian re-arrested from the October 2011 political prisoner exchange between Israeli and Hamas. The deal stipulated the release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit and about a thousand Palestinians political prisoners. A first round of 477 Palestinians, including Shalabi, were released in October. By December, Israel had arrested an additional 470 Palestinians. Speaking toMa’an News, Addameer confirms:

‘This wave of arrests reveals that the exchange deal has not deterred Israel’s policy of detention of Palestinians; rather, Israeli prisons are being refilled with almost the exact number of Palestinians that were released in October.’

Furthermore, Ma’an reports, this week alone, another four prisoners also released in the October 18 exchange were rearrested. Two of the men are currently still in Israeli custody. Shalabi’s case and the other re-arrests shed light onto an overall increase in administrative detainees despite the publicized prisoners exchange.

In 45 minutes with Obama, Goldberg asks repeatedly about Iran, nothing about Palestinians

Mar 02, 2012

Philip Weiss

Jeffrey Goldberg

As I predicted, in his role as representative of the Jewish people, Jeffrey Goldberg got a one-on-one interview with Barack Obama again, laying on hands to make sure that he wants to attack Iran.

In 45 minutes, Goldberg appears to have asked 23 questions, not one of them dealing with the 4-1/2 million Palestinians living without rights under occupation. Palestinians don’t merit a reference except when Obama disparages the Goldstone report and the flotilla.

But I guess that’s the point of the Great Game of the Iranian threat– take Palestine off the table.

Also, typically, Goldberg asks two questions about Obama’s relationship with Netanyahu. “Are you friends?” I.e., Goldberg’s ultimate test, do you like Israel?

Below, Goldberg seeks reassurance that Obama will resort to military means if he has to and that Iran is a threat not just to Israel but the world. Thus Goldberg seeks to solidify the idea that it is in the American people’s interest to attack Iran.

President Obama: It would still be a profound national-security interest of the United States to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
GOLDBERG: Why, then, is this issue so often seen as binary, always defined as Israel versus Iran?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I think it has to do with a legitimate concern on the part of Israel that they are a small country in a tough neighborhood, and as a consequence, even though the U.S. and Israel very much share assessments of how quickly Iran could obtain breakout capacity, and even though there is constant consultation and intelligence coordination around that question, Israel feels more vulnerable. And I think the prime minister and the defense minister, [Ehud Barak,] feel a profound, historic obligation not to put Israel in a position where it cannot act decisively and unilaterally to protect the state of Israel. I understand those concerns, and as a consequence, I think it’s not surprising that the way it gets framed, at least in this country, where the vast majority of people are profoundly sympathetic to Israel’s plight and potential vulnerabilities — that articles and stories get framed in terms of Israel’s potential vulnerability.
But I want to make clear that when we travel around the world and make presentations about this issue, that’s not how we frame it. We frame it as: this is something in the national-security interests of the United States and in the interests of the world community.

If you name your group ‘Emergency Committee for Israel,’ do you get to call people bigots when they say you’re an ‘Israel Firster’?

Mar 02, 2012

Philip Weiss

MJ Rosenberg

Here’s the latest in the Media Matters controversy. Alan Dershowitz, who teaches constitutional lawat Harvard, has gone on Fox News to push his campaign to have MJ Rosenberg fired by the liberal thinktank Media Matters for daring to suggest the Iran war campaign originates with “Israel firsters.”

Dershowitz says that Media Matters has “crossed the line” into anti-Semitism. Fox:

Dershowitz, though, argued that Israel’s and America’s interests are aligned, [Reader is this true?] and said Rosenberg was effectively accusing people like him of “treason.”

“It’s the oldest of charges … accusing Jews of dual loyalty, and it can’t be tolerated, whether it comes from the left or the right,” he said. “The tent is not big enough to include people who have engaged in bigotry against the Jewish people.”

But Media Matters has made its reputation by taking on Fox. Do you really think that the Media Matters funders care what Dershowitz says on the network? I sure hope not.

Oh, and by the way: MJ Rosenberg schooled a generation of us on the Israel lobby. Journalists, academics, activists– this brave, funny, salty, menschy journalist who can’t go a D.C. lunch without telling you to read Chaim Grade or I.J. Singer on the Jewish experience in central Europe– Rosenberg taught them about the Israel lobby. He spent years at AIPAC, and later the Israel Policy Forum, working for the two-state solution. Now I have to wonder, Where are those journalists and academics, when Rosenberg is taking the spears?

On to the neoconservative Emergency Committee for Israel, which ran a full-page ad in the New York Times yesterday saying that anyone who says Israel Firster is a bigot.

I need to ask a common sense question: If you name your American organization “The Emergency Committee for Israel,” is it fair for you to accuse people of bigotry when they say you are Israel Firsters?

Liberal Spencer Ackerman is upset that the Emergency Committee is using him in the ad.

But a month ago, Ackerman, a liberal Zionist, attacked anyone who uses the term “Israel Firster,”saying it was an anti-Semitic trope. And Ackerman singled out MJ Rosenberg. He wrote:

For months, M.J. Rosenberg of Media Matters, the progressive media watchdog group, has been throwing around the term “Israel Firster” to describe conservatives he disagrees with….

“Israel Firster” has a nasty anti-Semitic pedigree…

Well then yesterday, the Emergency Committee for Israel quoted Ackerman’s attack on Rosenberg in its full-page ad in the Times, and it used the quote above.

And Ackerman said he didn’t like being quoted by the Emergency Committee:

just to clarify: to be clear, what I wrote is public, and ECI is within its rights to use whatever. Had ECI asked me, though, this is what I would have told them: Guys, c’mon. Here I am, trying to carve out a space for liberal Zionism, and that includes calling out anti-semitic dogwhistles when they get on my nerves. You guys aren’t liberal Zionists, and we disagree on a lot of shit, but I would hope you’d agree that as long as we’re all Zionists, it’s better for liberal Zionism to exist than not exist. Putting my quote in your ad will make liberals suspicious of me, which in turn makes it harder for me to make a case for liberal Zionism. How is that helpful? Besides, people who read New York Times print ads probably have no idea who I am, but I guess that’s your business.

Gosh, what to say? We still in Kansas?

‘Under Attack’: the Golani Brigade’s treatment of Palestinians in Al-Khalil/Hebron

Mar 02, 2012

Christian Peacemaker Teams and the International Solidarity Movement

Israeli soldiers arresting a Palestinian youth at a Hebron checkpoint. (Photo: AFP)

A newly released report submitted to the United Nations by international organizations working in Al-Khalil (Hebron) documents a sharp increase in serious human rights violations against Palestinian civilians, particularly youth and children, living in the Old City and Tel Rumeida.

Since its arrival on December 27, 2011, the Israeli Golani Brigade has undertaken deliberate harassment and targeting of the Palestinian population of Al-Khalil, according to the report byChristian Peacemaker Teams and International Solidarity Movement, among others.

The report documents an increase in arrests and detentions of adults and children, serious physical injuries sustained while in military custody, home invasions, and an increase in the number and duration of arbitrary detentions of civilians at checkpoints. It also documents harassment of and attempts to silence international observers attempting to document these abuses.

And as for the usual military justifications, these human rights violations have occurred without any observed provocation on the part of Palestinians. These eye-witness accounts, either reported to or recorded by Internationals working in the city, are believed to represent only a small portion of the total number of abuses. For example:

On Thursday, January 12th: Golani beat a developmentally disabled young man when he knocked on the checkpoint door after they closed it in front of him. That evening, they attacked his mother and severely beat the teenager’s younger brother, cracking his skull, and then arrested the two young men.

On Tuesday, January 17th: Golani entered a man’s home at night, pushed the family out of their house, including their 1½ year old son, and beat the father, for which he required medical treatment.

On Friday, January 20th: Golani held a 10 and 12 year-old boy behind the gate of the Beit Romano settlement. A witness said the boys had been wearing ski masks because of the cold weather, but had not been throwing rocks, as the soldiers claimed. The soldiers gave the boys’ parents a list containing the names of five other boys from the Old City, saying that if the parents brought those boys to the gate, the soldiers would release the other two.

Internationals working in Al-Khalil have called for an immediate withdrawal of the Golani Brigade, citing fears that the abuses will continue to escalate and make life unbearable for Palestinians should the soldiers remain another two to five months as expected.

The full report is available here for viewing, along with video and photos.

J Street’s call for Iran diplomacy earns ire of Jewish establishment

Mar 02, 2012

Alex Kane

Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice president of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, with Benjamin Netanyahu (Photo: Tim Boxer)

The recent Jerusalem gathering that brought members of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations together made clear that the Jewish establishment has rallied around Benjamin Netanyahu’s war footing on Iran. But J Street, the liberal Zionist lobby group, has bucked the establishment’s line on Iran–so much so that the conference’s executive vice president, Malcolm Hoenlein, is on the warpath against the group, seeking to make its Iran position beyond the pale.

Israeli journalist Larry Derfner’s eye-opening report in +972 Magazine exposed the rotten core of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, an umbrella group encompassing organized Judaism’s most prominent organizations–52 in total, including Americans for Peace Now. Derfner reports on a panel discussion on Iran that took place during the gathering:

The best question came from from Rabbi Basil Herring, executive vice president of the (Orthodox) Rabbinical Council of America. Noting the difficulty in destroying Iran’s underground nuclear installations, Herring asked if Israel would consider “the use of tactical nuclear weapons in areas that aren’t so populated, or in the open desert? To show the Iranians that their lives are on the line, that Israel won’t go quietly?”

[…]

One of the very few liberals in the group told me he knew of three organizational leaders who sounded like they wanted to use tactical nuclear weapons on Iran “right now.” A number of them think Netanyahu is being too soft on the Iranians. As a whole, he said, the visitors were a little shocked at all the relatively dovish talk they were hearing from some of the Israelis on these panels.

J Street’s position is far removed from this hysterical and damaging war posture. While the group hasadvocated for punitive sanctions on Iran, which has had deleterious consequences for Iranian civilians, they are now pushing back hard against a potential Iran war.

J Street is currently promoting a Congressional letter authored by Reps. Keith Ellison, a progressive Democrat from Minnesota, and Walter Jones, a Republican from North Carolina. J Street states:

As the drumbeat for war with Iran grows louder veteran diplomats are straining to be heard, urging as Ambassadors Thomas Pickering and William Luers did in the New York Times, a robust, new diplomatic initiative.

Thankfully, some elected officials are listening, anxious to avoid yet another Middle East war. Representatives Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Walter Jones (R-NC) are seeking their colleagues’ signatures on a thoughtful letter to the President that supports both sanctions and pressure on Iran as well as a robust diplomatic initiative.

Although they praise sanctions on Iran, the Ellison-Jones letter (pdf) also strongly urges “diplomatic efforts” in order to head off a war.

J Street’s promotion of the letter can be considered a clarion call for sanity in a mainstream debate operating under the assumption that Israel faces an “existential threat” from Iran. But it also opens up a crack in the Jewish community–a crack that Hoenlein is afraid of.

We recently reported on comments that Hoenlein made to an Israeli magazine about J Street. Hoenlein said, “when you criticize the government of Israel, you have to consider the consequences.” He also ominously warned that “sadly, when we are divided, history records we have paid a heavy price”–clearly a reference to the Holocaust and a shot across the bow at J Street. Hoenlein similarly blasted J Street’s efforts in a video interview with the settler news website Arutz Sheva, calling the organization “irresponsible” and “out of step.”

 

So it’s clear that Hoenlein wants to rally the troops for a potential war with Iran. But J Street remains in the way, and Hoenlein wants to marginalize that way of thinking.

The NDAA — we are all Josef K now

Mar 02, 2012

Peter Voskamp

Ramsey Clark

The terms “Kafka-esque” and “Orwellian” can be tossed about too casually, but if critics are correct, the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act renders any American a potential Josef K. in his or her own nightmarish version of “The Trial.”

Section 1021 of the Act, per prevailing critical interpretation, authorizes indefinite military detention of American citizens — a dubious American first. No Habeas Corpus. No right to challenge evidence.

These “unconstitutional kidnapping powers,” as Blake Filippi of a Rhode Island Liberty Coalition called them during a “transpartisan” forum held with journalists last week, have spurred a groundswell of local and state effort to roll back this most alarming of power grabs.

At least six municipalities nationwide have adopted resolutions against the Act, and legislation has been introduced in state assemblies across the country to nullify the Act. Virginia’s House of Delegates passed such a measure 96-4 in recent weeks.

The discussion, sponsored by the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, Demand Progress and Tenth Amendment Center, included speakers and officials from across the political spectrum.

“This is the worst thing I’ve seen in my lifetime,” said social critic and author Naomi Wolf. She described the arrival of NDAA as a kind of liberty-evaporating tipping point, similar to the Nazis suspending the rule of law in 1933.

“That’s the point of no return; nobody’s safe,” Wolf said. Just a few targeted arrests were “all it took to shut down civil society.” Wolf was baffled over why senators like California’s Dianne Feinstein supported the act, when it’s certain Feinstein’s constituents would be appalled. “Who benefits?” she asked.

Wolf was arrested in New York last fall at an Occupy Wall Street protest. She now says that with NDAA on the books she’s not sure it’s safe to stand up for 1st Amendment. “All bets are off,” Wolf said. “There’s no accountability.”

Bruce Fein, a conservative writer and former Justice Department official in the Reagan Administration, was even more strident in his denunciations.

He expressed outrage over the lack of outrage following a recent appearance by Pentagon Counsel Jeh Johnson at Yale Law School. Johnson defended the administration’s assassination of U.S.-born Anwar al-Awlaki, as well as its overall right to take out any American citizen it says is in league with al-Qaeda.

“Belligerents who also happen to be U.S. citizens do not enjoy immunity where non-citizen belligerents are valid military objectives,” Johnson reportedly said.

Calling the situation “really quite wretched,” Fein said Obama had taken on “far more dictatorial powers than Richard Nixon.” By stripping citizens of Habeas Corpus rights as well as the ability challenge evidence, NDAA is “the ultimate corruption of due process,” said Fein. He pointed out that the country fought a war against England’s King George III precisely to free itself from such treachery. “Not quite the Nürnberg laws,” said Fein, referring to the Nazi anti-Semitic laws, “but moving there on the installment plan.”

Absent a Washington effort to overturn the Act, state and local officials have stepped into the breach.

North Carolina State Senator Ellie Kinnaird (D) said, “This country is really threatened — [the government] now has the power to undo everything we have.”

Washington State Rep. Matt Shea (R), a military veteran and practicing constitutional lawyer, has co-sponsored a bill — HD 2759, the “Preservation of Liberty Act” — declaring the NDAA unconstitutional and forbidding the state’s National Guard to arrest American citizens.

“How come local and state representatives can see it?” Shea asked, but the national Congressional leaders can’t.

The House of Representatives passed the NDAA 283-136, while the Senate approved it by a vote of 93-7.

NDAA defenders say the Act merely affirms the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed in the wake of 9-11, which already granted the president the right to order indefinite detention without trial. Also, say defenders, the extra-constitutional powers would go away once the “war” ends

However, Obama acknowledged reservations about Section 1021 when he quietly signed the NDAA into law on New Years Eve 2011. “The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists,” Obama wrote.

It is worth quoting another part of the statement at length.

“The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not ‘limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.’ Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any ‘existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.’ My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.”

Still, a pledge to not abuse power does not necessarily bring comfort, since future presidents would be able interpret the law as they wish.

If indefinite detention of U.S. citizens was not intended, then “why not write ‘prohibited’,” asked Peggy Littleton, a Republican County Commissioner for El Paso, Colo.

El Paso County passed a resolution against the NDAA on December 15, 2011, two weeks before Obama signed it into law. El Paso is home to myriad Air Force installations, and Littleton called the outrage at the power to indefinitely detain Americans “non-partisan.” Northhampton, Mass., City Councilor Bill Dwight (D) said, “we are witnessing the death by a thousand cuts to the Bill of Rights.” He said the public is being manipulated by fear, and that every politician’s first oath is to protect the U.S. Constitution, “which is clearly in jeopardy.” His town passed a non-binding resolution against the bill. It was the seventh city nationwide, and the first in Massachusetts, to do so.

In 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court granted Habeas Corpus to Guantanamo Bay inmates via the Boumediene v. Bush case. How does that decision square with NDAA?

Fein said the Boumediene decision was a kind of false dawn, easily circumvented by authorities by either moving an inmate, or by redacting charges to the point where the inmate still wouldn’t know what he was being held for

Fein called it “worse then Caligula,” whose edicts appeared in tiny letters so high upon a wall that citizens could never be certain where they stood vis-à-vis the law.

I spoke to the late Henry King Jr., a former Nuremberg prosecutor, in the immediate aftermath of the Boumediene v. Bush decision. He hailed it as “an affirmation of the principles” laid down at Nuremberg regarding the rule of law.

“We gave the Nuremberg defendants every right in the world,” said King. “We didn’t torture them” and provided a comparatively quick trial.

“We’re the beacon of light for human rights,” King insisted. “You’ve got to have a rule of law.”

King went on to say that his former boss in Nuremberg, lead prosecutor Robert Jackson, would be turning in his grave in response to the various “security” measures adopted in post-9/11 America.

“We ought to wipe out Guantanamo,” King said.

A few weeks ago I found myself standing next to former Attorney General Ramsey Clark in the café car of a train.

Clark is another fierce champion of the rule of law, to the extent that he has risked the ruination of his reputation in order to defend it. He assisted with Saddam Hussein’s legal defense, and volunteered to provide legal help to both Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic.

I asked Clark what he thought about the NDAA.

The 84-year-old gazed out upon the passing coastline and ruminated. We then entered Baltimore and he pointed to a church. “That’s where they held Philip Berrigan’s funeral service,” Clark said quietly.

Clark had defended Phil Berrigan, a former Catholic priest, who along with his brother the Jesuit priest Dan Berrigan, put his faith to the test through the decades, going to jail for acts of civil disobedience against the Vietnam War.

“The NDAA?” Clark repeated. “An outrage.”

The last time a Democratic president took on Benjamin Netanyahu…

Mar 02, 2012

Philip Weiss

My favorite conspiracy theory. A commenter mentioned this some months back.

From The Clinton Tapes: Wrestling History with the President, a record of conversations with then-President Bill Clinton, by Taylor Branch.

Chapter 30, “Buddy and Socks”

Wednesday, January 14, 1998:

In his discourse on the Middle East, [Clinton] was nettled from the beginning. Late last year, Prime Minister Netanyahu went on American television to complain that Clinton had “humiliated” the State of Israel by declining to meet when both their airplanes were delayed conveniently on runways at the Los Angeles airport….Clinton balked at another state meeting whose sole purpose was to stall, Netanyahu, having committed to taking concrete steps forward, planned to filibuster yet again with reasons why Israel must wait instead- this time for five months…

Clinton’s temper rose in anticipation of separate audiences next week with Netanyahu and Arafat… Now Netanyahu blocked further withdrawals [from the West Bank]… Bibi would retain full control in more than half the West Bank—60 percent—including a network of roads connecting the Israeli settlements. Clinton said no two-state deal could advance on terms so stingy… The iron logic of occupation [in Gaza] demanded a servile psychology, but it also drove popular support from Arafat toward Hamas…

He said he understood why President Bush and Secretary of State Baker once announced cuts in Israel’s security allotmen That extremity, however, produced spasms of fear and retrenchment in Israel. It made sense only in a package to impose a Middle East settlement from the outside… Leaving Israel’s military assistance intact, the president contemplated his ultimate sanction: public withdrawal from the talks. He said it was not in the interest of the United States to dignify phony negotiations. He refused to sponsor a sham.

I asked whether he would say so to Netanyahu at the White House next week. “That’s what we’re arguing about,” he replied. Short of this, I asked, could he suspend further U.S. contact until Netanyahu delivered smaller steps like the business permits for Gaza?… [S]uch conditions would be a rebuke to Israel for dragging its feet on measures not essential to security. Clinton said his neutrality would be hard to recover…

Chapter 31, “Lewinsky”

Wednesday, January 21, 1998

Stricken, [my wife by telephone] told me to bring in our early Washington Post and turn on the television. Nonstop news revealed the president’s alleged affair with a twenty-four-year-old former White House intern named Monica Lewinsky.