With a bang, not a whimper: "rebellion goes global"

A final summing-up on the Independent Jewish Voices debate from one of the signatories.

February 12, 2007 9:45 AM

Brian Klug

At the end of a week of intense debate on the Guardian's Comment is Free website, I shall try to take stock of how the launch of Independent Jewish Voices (IJV) has been received.

Not with a whimper but with a bang, it would be fair to say. When a number of us got together with the idea that it was time to stake a claim for the principles set out in the IJV statement, we hoped we would have an impact. We even expected that our initiative would not fall entirely flat. But we did not realise that the tinder of public opinion was quite so dry and that news of our ideas would spread like wildfire.

"The rebellion goes global" is the headline of the lead article on the front page of this week's Jewish Chronicle (JC), which prides itself on being the "world's oldest and most influential Jewish newspaper". "International drive to challenge communal leaders' 'unquestioning support' for Israel reaches Britain" explains the strap line. The article reports that in just three days over 1,000 entries on the subject were posted on the Comment is Free site. This is not to say that the JC is sympathetic to IJV, as it makes clear in an editorial [subscription only]. But its extensive coverage reflects the extent of public interest, not least in Jewish circles, in the issues raised by the launch.

It's the issues, not the IJV as such, that count. As one email writer put it: "Judging by the enormous response, it is clear that these issues have been smouldering beneath the surface for some time". He thought that the launch of IJV has "catalysed the debate".

Another wrote: "You have said openly what many of us have felt for a very long time but have lacked a vehicle for expressing our views."

These sentiments, which have been expressed in abundance over the last week, provide part of the answer to an objection raised frequently - in the threads of comments on this site and elsewhere - during the week. We stand accused of being a clique of marginal Jews who have ample opportunity to express our views in the media; who have invented or imagined the figment of censorship; and who simply cannot bear the heat of vigorous debate.

It would take a while to unpack this accusation in full. Briefly, there is no clique. The two email writers I just quoted are not members of the glitterati. They do not have automatic access to the comment pages of newspapers. Like many signatories to the IJV statement, they are individuals who feel alienated by the prevailing climate of debate over Israel and Zionism within the Jewish world.

Numerous Jews in Britain fit this description. They are at the heart of our initiative. We are seeking to enfranchise people who are effectively disfranchised by the current ethos, whether the lives they lead are within an organised Jewish community or not. Some negative responses to IJV seem to suggest that people who are not in the Jewish mainstream have less right to a voice as Jews; as if living on the margins of "the Jewish community" makes you a marginal Jew. This idea is as invalid as it is offensive.

Furthermore, contrary to the construction put on our words by some critics, none of us is suggesting that there is an unofficial censor who prevents individuals from expressing unpopular views about Israel or Zionism. It's what happens after people speak out - how their words are received - that is the point. Moreover, individual dissenting voices get lost or drowned out when weighty bodies (like the Board of Deputies or the Chief Rabbi) appear to speak on behalf of all Jews in Britain. It is the combination of these two factors that closes down a debate that should be open.

An open debate on a controversial subject is bound to be vigorous. But vigour is one thing, vilification another. The difference can be seen in the range of reactions to the launch of IJV. There have been reasoned objections and legitimate questions. But there has also been an extraordinary amount of abusive language, ridicule and attacks on our character or motives.

Who are we? We are a network of Jews in Britain who share a commitment to certain principles, especially with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in mind: putting human rights first, rejecting all forms of racism, and giving equal priority to Palestinians and Israelis in their quest for a peaceful and secure future.

We believe that these principles, rather than group loyalty, should determine the parameters of legitimate debate. What is there to hate? Yet the vitriol is ubiquitous. One leading commentator refers to us as "Jews for genocide". Nothing could offer a clearer illustration of the climate we are describing than an epithet like this.

There is a larger context. Domestically, the IJV statement bears on the current public debate in Britain about the nature of a plural society: Sunny Hundal makes the connection in his article on the Comment is Free website. And there are initiatives like ours abroad, as the front page article in the JC reports. Developments in America are described by Richard Silverstein in his piece on this site and by Gaby Wood in Sunday's Observer.

At the end of the launch week it is clear that IJV has struck a chord - hence the degree of support we have received - and hit a nerve - hence the scale of the hostility. Things are changing, at home and abroad, and this is just the beginning.

Click here for a full list of articles in the Independent Jewish Voices debate.

Dr Brian Klug is senior research fellow & tutor in philosophy at St Benet’s Hall, Oxford and member of the Faculty of Philosophy at Oxford University. He is an honorary fellow in the Parkes Institute for the Study of Jewish/non Jewish Relations at the University of Southampton, associate editor of Patterns of Prejudice and a founder member of the Jewish Forum for Justice and Human Rights. He has published widely on race, antisemitism, Jewish identity, Zionism and related subjects. Books include, Children as Equals: Exploring the Rights of the Child (co-editor) and Ethics, Value and Reality: Selected Papers of Aurel Kolnai (co-editor).

The Road Map to Despotism

Related

Totalitarianism and Obedience

---

Posted on Feb 11, 2007

usamotalarian.no

By Chris Hedges

Editor’s note: Despite spending an estimated $80 million, the government was unable to prove that Dr. Sami Al-Arian was a terrorist, yet he remains in prison and his sentence will likely be extended. Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges warns that the abusive imprisonment of this nonviolent Palestinian dissenter does not bode well for the rest of us.

Professor Sami Al-Arian, whose persecution and show trial are parts of a long string of egregious acts of injustice perpetrated by the Bush administration, has been on a hunger strike since Jan. 22 to protest the prolongation of his imprisonment.

Al-Arian’s travels through the halls of American justice, and now the subterranean corridors of the nation’s Stygian prison system, reads like a bad rip-off of Kafka. Al-Arian was acquitted on eight of the 17 counts against him by a Florida jury, which deadlocked on the rest. He agreed to plead guilty to one of the remaining charges four months later in exchange for being released and deported. The judge gave Al-Arian as much prison time as possible under a plea deal—57 months at his sentencing. He was set to be released this April, something that now appears unlikely.

The trial was a stinging rebuke to the Bush administration’s drive to turn the American judicial system into kangaroo courts. Over the six-month trial a parade of 80 witnesses, including 21 from Israel, attempted to brand the Florida professor as a terrorist. The government submitted thousands of documents, phone interceptions and physical surveillance culled from 12 years of investigations. The trial cost taxpayers an estimated $80 million. The 94 charges against Al-Arian and his co-defendants resulted in no convictions. But because Al-Arian has twice refused to testify before a grand jury in Virginia in a case involving a Muslim think tank, he has now been charged with contempt of court. The date of his release could be extended by as much as 18 months.

Al-Arian, who is a diabetic, began a hunger strike in response.

“I believe that freedom and human dignity are more precious than life itself,” he said in a telephone interview from Northern Neck Regional Jail in Warsaw, Va. “In, essence I am taking a principled stand that I am willing to endure whatever it takes to win my freedom.

“I am still OK,” he said. “I have lost 26 pounds by today. It’s definitely not easy, but I am determined to continue. It’s not a decision you make haphazardly or something that you take lightly. In the end, you have to make difficult decisions because of the larger cause. I drink four large cups of water a day, about 12 ounces each.”

Dr. Al-Arian said he will remain on a hunger strike until the government ends its campaign against him and allows him to return to his wife and children.

The case and continued harassment sets a dangerous precedent for American Muslims, who since 9/11 have been monitored, detained and deported in large numbers. But it bodes ill for the rest of us as well. The new legislation suspending habeas corpus and creating the possibility of legally stripping U.S. citizens of their right to a fair and timely trial is a taste of what awaits us all should we enter a period of instability or national crisis. In many ways the assault against Al-Arian is an assault against the judicial system that lies like a barrier between us and despotism.

“Much of the government’s evidence against me were speeches I gave, lectures I presented, articles I wrote, magazines I edited, books I owned, conferences I convened, rallies I attended, interviews I conducted, news I heard and websites no one accessed...In one instance, the evidence consisted of a conversation that one of my co-defendants had with me in his dream,” he said. “It was reminiscent of the thought crime of Orwell’s ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four.’ The scary part was not that these were offered into evidence, but that a federal judge admitted them. That’s why I am so proud of the jury, who acted as the free people that they were and saw through Big Brother’s tactics.

“I’ve been to nine prisons in nine months,” he explained. “I spent the first 23 months in Coleman Federal Penitentiary, where the conditions were Guantanamo-plus, that is they were like those of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay ‘plus’ one phone call a month and visits with my family behind glass. I was in a nine-foot-by-eight-foot cell, where I was held under 23-hour lockdown. During the first few months, they wouldn’t even allow me to exercise unless I was strip-searched, which I refused to submit to, so I was inside 24 hours. During the first month, I was allowed only one 15-minute phone call, and for six months after that I was not allowed to make any calls.

“I was shackled and handcuffed every single time I left my cell for any reason,” he said. “When I needed to take my legal papers for meetings with my attorney, the guards would not carry them for me, even though they did for other prisoners. Though I was shackled, they forced me to carry them on my back, as I was bent over. I had to walk like that for half a mile. I should also mention the use of fire alarms in trying to disrupt life. In the Special Housing Unit [SHU], a punitive section of the prison where I was the only pretrial detainee, alarms and emergency sirens would go off 15 to 20 times every single day, at 12 a.m., 2 p.m., any time of the day. It was a deafening noise that would continue for five to 10 minutes. It was clearly deliberate. In the SHU, commissary was almost nonexistent. All they offered was potato chips, whereas in the general compound everything was available. The SHU was designed for disciplinary purposes, not for housing a pretrial detainee.

“Not only did they place me in the SHU, but they imposed additional restrictions on me,” he went on. “For instance, everybody else was granted contact visits, while I had to see my family behind glass. They also insisted on strip-searching me before and after these behind-the-glass visits. In May 2003, my wife drove two hours to see me, but they denied her the visit when I would not submit to a strip search.”

Al-Arian is a Palestinian. The injustice meted out to him in America is writ large in the Middle East. He has no passport, no home, no country. He must live on the charity of others, stateless, as most Palestinians are, and without the rights of the citizens around him. He once thought America would be his home. He was, before this charade, in the process of gaining citizenship. All this is over. In George Bush’s America there is no place for activists or dissidents. And when they finish with those on the margins of our society they will turn, if we let them, on the rest of us.

Chris Hedges

S-ICE: Another Assault On Freedom of Speech and Poaching in FBI Territory

Posted on Fri Dec 22nd, 2006 at 10:08:24 AM EST

“Our liberty depends on freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.” - Thomas Jefferson

After reviewing the story written by Hector Carreon of La Voz de Aztlan about his encounter with DHS special agents on December 23, 2005 at his residence, in the Los Angeles, CA area I concluded that we had two issues with the Hector Carreon’s case: DHS’ attempt to intimidate a journalist and news reporter for exercising his First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and secondly, DHS investigating a suspected terrorist organization, which it is not an enforcement action within the DHS jurisdiction. This is FBI's territory. Although Mr. Carreon did not identify the DHS special agents by name or the agency, I assume the agents were from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Los Angeles ICE District Office. It is possible the agents asked Mr. Carreon not to publish their name or the agency they worked for “under the name of national security.”

Mr. Hector Carreon did not have to give up his Constitutional Rights that easy. What he did in essence was giving our U.S. government consent to search his house and allow DHS to obtain copies of all of La Voz de Aztlan subscribers’ personal data.

If I were the FBI-SAC Los Angeles after reading Mr. Carreon’s narrative, I would pick-up the phone and make some calls not only to his/her Los Angeles ICE counterpart but to the FBI Director. In summary, DHS and assuming ICE was involved, they were basically poaching into FBI exclusive territory: investigations of terrorist organizations within the USA.

Now, if there is such alleged coordination between DHS-ICE and the FBI’s Joint Terrorist Task Force, why was not an FBI agent present during Mr. Carreon’s consented search of his residence? One more thing, let’s assume that the FBI was already conducting an investigation on Mr. Carreon and his La Voz de Aztlan for possible terrorist activities, what DHS did in essence was to obstruct and sabotage an FBI investigation. This of course does not imply by any means that Mr. Carreon and his organization is connected with any terrorist group.

I don’t know if the above case had something to do with the sudden retirement of the Los Angeles ICE SAC Loraine Brown.

The Hector Carreon case is similar to my co-publisher Bill Conroy’s case, but the government’s intention and motives were not the same. In the Conroy’s case the DHS-OPR goons only wanted to intimidate him and to tell his bosses about his Narco News stories. On the other hand, the Carreon case was a pure “terrorist related investigation,” and of course to intimidate him and give him a "warning" about his stories exposing government corruption in the USA and abroad.

The Hector Carreon Story

DHS: "La Voz de Aztlan has raised eyebrows in Washington" by Hector Carreon - La Voz de Aztlan - Los Angeles, Alta California, January 12, 2006 - (ACN)

On the morning of December 22, 2005, I noticed a business card that was left at the door of my home. The card was from the US Department of Homeland Security and had a handwritten note that said "Please call". That afternoon I called Los Angeles and spoke with the special agent whose name was on the card. The DHS agent said they wanted to speak to me about "The Aztlan Movement" and my organization. I answered, "Do you mean La Voz de Aztlan?" I added, "La Voz de Aztlan is a news and information service." The special agent wanted to come to my home to speak to me personally on the following day. We made a 8:30 a.m. appointment.

The knock on my door came at precisely 8:30 a.m. on December 23, 2005 as my family was making final preparations for Christmas Day. On the other side of my glass door were two gentlemen dressed in professional business suits. I opened the door and we introduced each other. I escorted them to my living room and introduced the two special agents to two of my family members that were present. We all sat down and the lead government agent began the conversation.

Among the first statements said by the special agent in charge was, "La Voz de Aztlan has raised eyebrows in Washington". He proceeded to ask numerous questions about Aztlan. He said that he was not from the area and wanted to know as much as possible about the "Aztlan Movement" and my organization. I reiterated that "La Voz de Aztlan" is not an organization per se but merely an Internet news service for Mexican and Mexican-Americans in the US Southwest and in Mexico. I added that La Voz de Aztlan, however, had attracted readership and subscriber from around the globe.

He asked what Aztlan meant to me. I answered that Aztlan has many levels of meaning. I said that "Aztlan" in the name of our news publication is mostly symbolic. I gave both special agents the historic and cultural basis for "Aztlan" . I mentioned that there exists historical Mexica documents and old Spanish maps that point to an actual region called "Aztlan" that existed in pre-Columbian times near the "four corners" area of the US Southwest. I mentioned that according to ancient Mexica (Aztec) lore, they were to migrate south to establish the great city of Tenochtitlan (present day Mexico City) at a place where they were to see a "sign". The sign would be "An eagle on top of a cactus with a serpent in its beak". One of the special agents immediately recognized this "sign" as being part of the Mexican flag.

At this point the conversation turned into "Aztlan" being a separatist organization and whether I believed that the Southwest should separate from Washington and become part of Mexico. I said that there are many youths of Mexican descent that believe in such a possibility but that my personal beliefs are more in line with those of Professor Armando Navarro of the University of California and of Professor Charles Truxillo of the University of New Mexico. The special agent asked me whether I believed in the armed and violent overthrow of the US government. I answered "no" and that I believed in making social and political changes through the "ballot box".

The lead special agent also asked questions concerning a news report we had on a legendary Iraqi sniper that our troops have nicknamed "Juba". The report included a link to a video on the server of "The Internet Archive" at www.archive.org. "The Internet Archive" is funded by the US Library of Congress but the video appears to have been produced by Al-Queda. We have now removed two reports on "Juba" because of the concerns communicated to us by the DHS.

There were numerous other questions concerning my education, employment and military record with the US Army 2nd Armored Division. They asked what kind of weapons I own and where in the house I kept them. They asked whether I had friends and who were my associates. They asked about Ernesto Cienfuegos, Roberto Cruz and my association with Dr. Armando Navarro. They also asked how I got along with my neighbors.

At about this point, the second special agent got up and approached me with a clip board and a document. He requested that I print my name on a line at the top and sign at the bottom. I ask what it was for and he answered that it was permission for them to examine my computer. All this time the special agent in charge was in constant radio communication with someone at a remote location. I had to decide on the spot whether to grant permission or insist on a court warrant. I decided that it would be the best course to continue to fully cooperate with the federal agents and I sign the document. Right after I signed, the lead agent radioed someone and within five minutes two more special agents arrived to my home with suitcases of electronic equipment. The lead agent asked me to escort them to my computer room where they spent two hours copying the hard disk of my computer. I do not know what else they did down there because I was kept busy by the other two agents upstairs answering additional questions.

It was clear to me that the Department of Homeland Security had conducted previous surveillance and investigations because they already had much information on myself and our news publication "La Voz de Aztlan". The special agent in charge gave me the distinct impression that they were acting on high level orders from Washington. We suspect Congressman Tom Tancredo, the AIPAC or both. We are presently preparing a "congressional inquiry" in an attempt to find out who was behind this frightening invasion of privacy and government action that has "chilled" our constitutional freedom of speech and of the press.
http://www.aztlan.net/homeland_security_incident.h tm

REFERENCES

DHS eyes House members Agent who spoke with rep suspended - Sara A. Carter, Staff Writer - San Bernardino County Sun Article - 09/27/2006

Congressmen who visit the U.S.-Mexico border unannounced are being monitored by the Department of Homeland Security, and at least one U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent has been suspended for speaking to a congressman without first getting supervisory clearance, according to documents obtained by the Daily Bulletin.

Congressional members interviewed by the newspaper said they were unaware until recently that Border Patrol agents were required to file Significant Incident Reports - normally used for shootings and other serious border incidents - when congressional members made unannounced visits in the summer along the U.S.-Mexico border.

A second document obtained by the paper reveals that one agent was suspended for 10 days without pay for speaking with Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, who made an unannounced visit to the border in May.

"Preventing Congress from speaking freely to federal employees violates at least two federal statutes, and agents are fearful of telling the truth," said King, who recounted several visits to the Mexican border when Border Patrol agents would not speak with him for fear of reprisal.
http://www.sbsun.com/ci_4401381

The National Alliance for Human Rights

The Dr. Armando Navarro mentioned in the Hector Carreon's search incident is coordinator of the National Alliance for Human Rights, a network of leaders, activists, scholars and organizations committed to the promotion of human rights, social justice and political empowerment of the Latino community in the United States. Since its formation in the year 2000, the National Alliance for Human Rights has been at the forefront of issues affecting Latinos. Armando Navarro, Coordinator, (951) 333-6819
http://www.nationalallianceforhumanrights.org/

homeland security going after journalist Greg Palast reposter Greg Palast is facing a criminal complaint from the Department of Homeland Security stemming from his filming the Hurricane Katrina investigation for Link TV and Democracy Now.

Palast, Pascarella Face Homeland Security Charges Published by Greg Palast September 7th, 2006 in Articles by Zach Roberts

Yes, the rumor's true. Greg Palast is facing a criminal complaint from the Department of Homeland Security stemming from his filming the Hurricane Katrina investigation for Link TV and Democracy Now. The film's producer, Matt Pascarella, is also facing the legal wrath of Big Brother.

It appears the complaint is about filming a sensitive national security site owned by Exxon petroleum. It seems that photographing major Bush donors is now a federal offense.

Reached at an undisclosed location, Palast says, "Let's not get over-excited. They haven't measured us for our orange suits yet."

During questioning by Homeland Security, Palast asked, "Hey, aren't you supposed to be looking for Osama? Or for guys with exploding shoes? ... We're journalists." At Palast's request, Homeland Security confirmed that Louisiana is, indeed, still part of the USA but did not respond when asked if the First Amendment applies there.

Watch part one and part two of Palast and Pascarella's film. (In association with BigNoise Films) BigNoise Videographer Jaqui Soohen has not been charged http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/09/345676.sh tml

Free Political Expression Is Protected by the First Amendment

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, however, protects the right of political expression of citizens and citizen groups. The First Amendment provides that:

"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." This Amendment was incorporated in our Constitution, at the urging of James Madison, to protect "indispensable democratic freedoms."

Freedom of speech and association were viewed by the Framers of the Constitution as essential to democracy. As the courts have explained:

(i)f popular elections form the essence of republican government, free discourse and political activity formed the prerequisite for popular elections.

Thus, "freedom of speech plays a fundamental role in a democracy. . . [I]t 'is the matrix, the indispensable condition of nearly every other freedom.'"

The Supreme Court has held, therefore, that political expression is "at the core of our electoral process and of First Amendment freedoms."

[T]he First Amendment right to 'speak one's mind . . . on all public institutions' includes the right to engage in "'vigorous advocacy' no less than 'abstract discussion.'" Advocacy of the election or defeat of candidates for federal office is no less entitled to protection under the First Amendment than the discussion of political policy generally or advocacy of the passage or defeat of legislation.

Thus, the Court has concluded that "it can hardly be doubted that the constitutional guarantee [of the First Amendment] has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office."

To date, the federal courts, including the United States Supreme Court, have vigorously protected the First Amendment right of citizens and citizens' groups to free political expression. The seminal case is Buckley v. Valeo, decided in 1976, which struck down, on First Amendment grounds, many of the speech limiting provisions of the post-Watergate amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act.

Other important decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court protecting free political expression and association are NCPAC v. Federal Election Commission, Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, and Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee.
http://www.jamesmadisoncenter.org/missionstatement .html

By Miguel Contreras,

Gingrich: free speech getting old

Gingrich raises alarm at event honoring those who stand up for freedom of speech
By RILEY YATES

Union Leader Staff
12 hours, 42 minutes ago


MANCHESTER – Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich yesterday said the country will be forced to reexamine freedom of speech to meet the threat of terrorism.


GINGRICH
Gingrich, speaking at a Manchester awards banquet, said a "different set of rules" may be needed to reduce terrorists' ability to use the Internet and free speech to recruit and get out their message.


"We need to get ahead of the curve before we actually lose a city, which I think could happen in the next decade," said Gingrich, a Republican who helped engineer the GOP's takeover of Congress in 1994.

Gingrich spoke to about 400 state and local power brokers last night at the annual Nackey S. Loeb First Amendment award dinner, which fetes people and organizations that stand up for freedom of speech.

Gingrich sharply criticized campaign finance laws he charged were reducing free speech and doing little to fight attack advertising. He also said court rulings over separation of church and state have hurt citizens' ability to express themselves and their faith.

Last night's event, held at the Radisson Hotel-Center of New Hampshire, honored a Lakes Region newspaper and a former speaker of the House for work in favor of free expression.

The Citizen of Laconia was given the Nackey S. Loeb First Amendment Award, which is named after the longtime President and Publisher of the Union Leader Corporation, owner of New Hampshire's statewide newspaper.

The Citizen scrutinized the Newfound Area School Board beginning last year over a series of e-mail discussions held before public meetings. It also used the right-to-know law to uncover costly decisions by the town of Tilton this year.

Executive Editor John Howe said the decision to pursue the stories led to at least one advertiser canceling its business with the paper.

"We try to practice what we preach, even if it costs us business," Howe said. "And it has and it will in the future.

Also honored was Marshall Cobleigh, former House speaker and a longtime aide to former Gov. Meldrim Thomson.

Cobleigh introduced an amendment to the state Constitution defending free speech. He also helped shepherd the state's 1967 right-to-know law through the Legislature.

Gingrich's speech focused on the First Amendment, but in an interview beforehand, he also hit upon wide-ranging topics.

Gingrich said America has "failed" in Iraq over the past three years and urged a new approach to winning the conflict. The U.S. needs to engage Syria and Iran and increase investment to train the Iraqi army and a national police force, he said. "How does a defeat for America make us safer?" Gingrich said. "I would look at an entirely new strategy." He added: "We have clearly failed in the last three years to achieve the kind of outcome we want."

Political parties in Presidential primary states should host events that invite candidates from both parties to discuss issues, said Gingrich, who criticized the sharpness of today's politics.

Gingrich said voters unhappy with the war, the response to Hurricane Katrina and pork barrel spending were the main drive behind the GOP's rejection at the polls. But he argued Republicans would have retained the Senate and just narrowly lost the House if President Bush had announced the departure of embattled Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld before, instead of after, the election.

Gingrich said he will not decide whether he is running for President until September 2007.

The event last night was sponsored by the Nackey S. Loeb School of Communications. The school was founded in 1999 to promote journalism and other forms of communication.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Gingrich+raises+alarm+at+event+honoring+those+who+stand+up+for+freedom+of+speech&articleId=d3f4ee4e-1e90-475a-b1b0-bbcd5baedd78

Court Rules Against New York Times

WASHINGTON, Nov. 27, 2006

(CBS/AP) The Supreme Court ruled against The New York Times on Monday, refusing to block the government from reviewing telephone records of two Times reporters in a leak investigation concerning a terrorism-funding probe.

The one-sentence order came in a First Amendment battle that involves stories written in 2001 by Times reporters Judith Miller and Philip Shenon. The stories revealed the government's plans to freeze the assets of two Islamic charities, the Holy Land Foundation and the Global Relief Foundation.

U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald is trying to track down the reporters' confidential sources for the stories. Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, declined to comment on the Supreme Court's order.

The case marks the second refusal by the court in as many years to sort out a clash between the federal government and the Times over press freedom.

In June 2005, the Supreme Court refused to take up the Times' request to hear an appeal in the CIA leak investigation involving the outing of Valerie Plame. In that case, Miller, who retired from the Times a year ago, spent 85 days in jail before agreeing to testify before a federal grand jury. Fitzgerald, in a role as a special counsel, conducted that leak investigation as well.

Monday's rejection "is just further indication that we're getting absolutely nowhere with the court when it comes to protecting confidential sources," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

The case points out a growing problem of reporters trying to protect their sources in the information age, press advocates say. Rather than threatening reporters with jail if they don't testify, the government can go through the back door to hunt down confidential sources by amassing phone records and credit-card receipts.

"It's impossible to operate on cash only and face-to-face and do your job as journalists," said University of Minnesota media ethics and law professor Jane E. Kirtley.

Dalglish said protection of phone record confidentiality is among the issues that should be addressed in federal shield law legislation she and other media advocates are urging Congress to consider.

In other cases:


The Supreme Court pressed both sides in the opening arguments of a case that businesses of all stripes care deeply about: how hard should it be to get evidence that a company might be violating antitrust laws? The case, Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, stems from the deregulation of the telecommunications industry in the 1980s and 1990s, with some experts citing it as the most important antitrust case to reach the Supreme Court in 20 years. The case is being closely watched by numerous companies, including airlines, credit-card issuers and trade associations representing the wireless communications and pharmaceutical industries, all of whom have submitted or signed onto friend-of-the-court briefs.


The court decided not to plunge into the issue of school choice, passing up a dispute over a Maine law that bars the use of public funds to send students to private religious schools. A conservative group, the Institute for Justice, had asked the justices to take the case. The group is representing eight Maine families who would receive public tuition funds but for the fact that their children attend religious schools.


The court also let stand a ruling that dismissed a $10.1 billion verdict against Philip Morris USA, ending a case that became a windfall for the county where it originated but helped feed its reputation as a "judicial hellhole." In its order Monday, the high court upheld without comment last year's Illinois Supreme Court ruling throwing out the massive fraud judgment against Philip Morris USA, a unit of New York-based Altria Group Inc., in a class-action lawsuit involving "light" cigarettes.


The Supreme Court hears arguments this week in a case that could determine whether the Bush administration must change course in how it deals with the threat of global warming. A dozen states as well as environmental groups and large cities are trying to convince the court that the Environmental Protection Agency must regulate, as a matter of public health, the amount of carbon dioxide that comes from vehicles.

Floyd Abrams, a lawyer for the Times, said the current case is part of a larger dispute over the public's right to information.

"We remain hopeful that in the end, whether in the courts or in Congress, that right will be vindicated," Abrams said.

The current dispute stems from Shenon and Miller calling the two charities for comment after learning of the planned freeze on their assets from confidential sources.

The Justice Department says the reporters' calls tipped off the charities of upcoming government raids. A federal judge who ruled in the Times' favor said there is no evidence in the case even suggesting that the reporters tipped off the charities about the raids or that the reporters even knew the government would raid either charity.

In August, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that federal prosecutors could see the two reporters' phone records.

The government says the fact that the reporters relayed disclosures from a government source to "targets of an imminent law enforcement action substantially weakens any claim of freedom of the press."

At issue are 11 days of phone records the government plans to review from 2001 — for the dates Sept. 27-30, Dec. 1-3 and Dec. 10-13. In a declaration this month, Fitzgerald said the statute of limitations "on certain substantive offenses that the grand jury is investigating" will expire on Dec. 3 and Dec. 13 of this year.

The current leak probe is in Fitzgerald's capacity as U.S. Attorney in Chicago. The Libby prosecution is in Fitzgerald's role as a special counsel who was selected by a Justice Department superior to conduct that investigation.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/26/supremecourt/main2209121.shtml

ASSAULT ON PRESS FREEDOM

In a nation that preaches the virtues of democracy, the United States government has consistently eroded the media's ability to report and, by extension, undermines the ideals it professes to uphold

- William Bennett Turner
Sunday, November 26, 2006


Vladimir Posner, the former Soviet journalist, used to claim the press was freer in the Soviet Union than it was in the United States. This was during Glasnost, as the Soviet empire was disintegrating. Posner explained that the government was dysfunctional, so journalists did not have to worry about the official censors, and the media had not been privatized, so journalists were not accountable to commercial sponsors and advertisers. The result was a kind of anarchic freedom. The press was free, but only for a brief window in time.

The window in America once was open wide and, I thought, permanently so. I used to tell my students on the first day of class that we had the freest speech and press in the world. I can't do that anymore.

In recent years American press freedom has eroded. Many other countries are now ranked freer than the United States -- all of the Scandinavian countries, Belgium, the Netherlands, New Zealand and many others. In the most recent survey by Freedom House, an independent American-based organization that assesses liberties around the world, the United States tied for 17th place, with the Bahamas, Estonia, Germany and others.

The international free-press advocates Reporters Without Borders ranked us 53rd, tied with Botswana, Croatia and Tonga. These rankings may not be scientifically valid, for a lot of subjective judgment is involved. But it is sobering to see the consensus that the United States is no longer anywhere near the top.

By virtue of Supreme Court decisions, the U.S. press remains freer than the press elsewhere in a few respects.

First, our law provides significantly greater protection for the press against libel suits, especially by government officials. In many countries, libel is a bullying tool for officials and the powerful to silence dissent. Under the 1964 decision in New York Times vs. Sullivan, insults, parodies and vicious criticism of officials are protected by the First Amendment.

Second, our law protects the press against almost any attempt by government to impose a "prior restraint" on what can be published. That is, the government is not allowed to censor, in advance, information the press may wish to publish. The famous "Pentagon Papers" case in 1971 allowed the New York Times and the Washington Post to publish information about a classified Defense Department study on American involvement in Vietnam, despite the government's contention that publication would impair national security.

Third, perhaps unique in the world, our law protects the advocacy of dangerous, potentially divisive ideas. One can preach overthrow of the government -- domestic "regime change" -- religious hatred, racial discrimination and even criminal activity. Under the Supreme Court's 1969 decision in Brandenburg vs. Ohio, government may not suppress ideas, however repugnant to most, unless their expression amounts to incitement to imminent unlawful acts.

It also is true that American journalists have not been physically attacked based on what they report, at least at home (although overseas, some have been, and one was beheaded). In some other countries, journalists risk harassment or worse for reporting that offends government officials or powerful figures. The Committee to Protect Journalists reported that 47 journalists were murdered last year.

But U.S. press freedom has been slipping away since Sept. 11, 2001. Now that we are in a seemingly permanent "war" on terrorism, the government claims wartime powers that result in restricting press freedom.

The Bush administration has multiplied exponentially the number of documents it classifies as secret, shielding them from public view. It has classified literally millions of documents "top secret," according to reports filed with the National Archives; and the office of Vice President Dick Cheney claims to be exempt from reporting even the numbers of records it brands with the "classified" stamp. (The administration has also tried to retrieve antique classified documents from columnist Jack Anderson's estate, contending that only the government may possess such documents, however old.) Within weeks after 9/11, President Bush issued Executive Order 13233, allowing him to veto public release not only of his own presidential papers but those of former President Ronald Reagan, Bush's father and former President Bill Clinton.

The administration also is aggressively pursuing leaks, not with a Nixonian Plumbers unit but by threatening criminal prosecution. Some Republicans in Congress have called for Espionage Act prosecution of the New York Times for publishing revelations about the National Security Agency's monitoring of communications by U.S. citizens and tracking international financial transactions. Bush himself said it was "disgraceful" for the Times to reveal these government activities and publishing the security agency's leak was "helping the enemy."

Pursuing leaks inevitably means pursuing the reporters who received and published the leaks, forcing them to give up confidential sources or telephone records or go to jail. Whatever Judith Miller's motivation and however questionable her arrangement with "Scooter" Libby, she went to jail solely because she refused to reveal communications with her source to the federal grand jury.

Although all states (except Wyoming) legally recognize some sort of privilege for reporters to protect the confidentiality of sources, there is no federal shield law, and the Supreme Court held in 1972 that the First Amendment does not itself serve as one, at least where the information is sought by a federal grand jury investigating a crime.

So reporters who dare to report leaked information that may be classified, or information about testimony before a grand jury -- as Chronicle reporters Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada did in the BALCO proceeding about steroids in sports -- face subpoenas requiring them to reveal their confidential sources to grand juries or go to jail. And now, Williams and Fainaru-Wada have been ordered to serve as much as 18 months in federal prison, a ruling they have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

So far, the courts have refused to protect subpoenaed reporters no matter how important the information they unearthed or how insignificant the alleged crime. It is true that reporters have never had strong protection against federal subpoenas, but they have hardly ever needed it. Until now.

One of former Attorney General John Ashcroft's first post-Sept. 11 acts was to issue a directive to federal agencies restricting access to government records under the Freedom of Information Act. Ashcroft's directive effectively reversed the presumption of openness and told agencies not to allow inspection of records if there was any arguable basis for withholding the records, assuring officials that Justice Department lawyers would defend them if sued.

Ashcroft's Justice Department also proceeded to round up mostly Muslim immigrants and conduct deportation hearings in secret, not allowing the press or public even to know that any hearing took place, which caused one federal judge to remark that "democracy dies behind closed doors." Ashcroft's moves toward greater secrecy were of a piece with Cheney's refusal when sued under the Freedom of Information Act to disclose even the identity of the corporate executives he met with to determine the administration's energy policy.

Unlike in Sweden, where the right of access to government documents is enshrined in the Constitution, our 1966 information act is solely a legislative creation. Unlike in South Korea, where the Supreme Court decided in 1989 that the right of access to government documents was an integral part of the constitutional freedom of the press, the U.S. Supreme Court held (in a case I lost, Houchins vs. KQED) that there is no such thing as a First Amendment right of access to government information or facilities. Consequently, Americans' right to know what their government is up to is not as well recognized as it is in some other countries.

Nor is government propaganda healthy for a free press or the citizenry. The Bush administration did not advance press freedom by producing and canning favorable "news" stories with fake reporters and peddling them to television stations, or by clandestinely paying friendly columnists for publishing opinions supporting administration policies.

Other recent U.S. government actions also cut into press freedom. The Federal Communications Commission's campaign to stamp out "indecency" and "profanity" in the broadcast media, with congressionally increased fines of $325,000 per violation for allowing a breast to be glimpsed or a dirty word uttered, has intimidated broadcasters.

The campaign may initially have been aimed at Howard Stern, but it puts at risk serious programming like a CBS documentary on 9/11 in which strong language escapes from the lips of firefighters and others in the inferno, "Saving Private Ryan" and even Masterpiece Theater's "Prime Suspect." Other countries like Sweden are bemused by American prissiness about sex and impose no comparable restrictions on their broadcasters.

The press is free in countries that trust the people to make wise decisions when they're fully informed, countries that remain willing to take the risks of dissent, rude discourse, instability and some insecurity, that tolerate eccentricity and unorthodox ideas. The erosion of press freedom in the United States, relative to other nations around the world, is disheartening. We have always had high expectations of freedom, which we now don't live up to.

It is hard to stomach the hypocrisy of claiming to spread democracy abroad while restricting at home the very freedoms that make democracy possible.

William Bennett Turner is a San Francisco lawyer who teaches a course on the First Amendment and the press at UC Berkeley. Contact us at insight@sfchronicle.com.

Page E - 1

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/11/26/INGAKMHOCV1.DTL&feed=rss.opinion

Author of New Study on Apartheid in Israel and Elsewhere Decries Lack of Freedom of Public Expression in the Anglo-American World

Vienna, October 24, 2006-- The author of an investigation into apartheid, which compares South Africa under white domination with 21 other societies, says his book has faced rejection by dozens of publishers because they fear accusations of anti-Semitism.

Written by Dr. Anthony Löwstedt, the study reaches the conclusion that of the 21 societies, modern Israel and Egypt under Graeco-Roman rule during the late antiquity are the closest parallels to South African apartheid. Löwstedt, who has taught at universities on three continents and worked as a senior consultant for the United Nations Development Program in the occupied West Bank, says that publishers are wary of his critical views of Israel.

Of commercial publishers and university presses contacted in dozens of countries, only two expressed interest in the book, though on the explicit condition that at least 67 percent of the text be removed. They also told Löwstedt that releasing this book would be difficult, as publishers are fearful of being accused of anti-Semitism.

The study views apartheid as a system of gross human rights violations, in line with the findings of international legal bodies. It identifies apartheid as attempts by an invading ethnic minority to take total control over violence, repopulation, citizenship, land, work, education, language, thought, and access to health care, water, and other social rights and privileges in the targeted society.

This results in recurring or continuous gross human rights violations. The study is meant to provide a well-documented basis for an International Criminal Court (ICC) indictment of the ethnic minority elites in past and present apartheid societies, and also contains substantial criticism of gross human rights violations – less systematic and fewer in numbers but also indictable before the ICC – committed by members of the indigenous ethnic majorities.

"Apartheid is a crime against humanity under international law," Löwstedt says.

The study finds that systems of apartheid give rise to the phenomenon of demographic warfare, which includes the victimization of indigenous women by members of their own ethnicity, and the ungendered sacrifice and targeting of civilians on both sides of the apartheid divide, such as through Palestinian militant suicide attacks.

However, the apartheid minority elites are also responsible for these crimes. Their ethnicist immigration policies and practices result in intensifying patriarchal pressures on indigenous women to produce a maximum number of offspring, which then becomes the only legal way for women to resist apartheid. Women who choose to opt out of this desperate strategy, or those who encourage other women to opt out, are then victimized.

Aside from these violent acts, and some dehumanizing and inciting elements of resistance ideology, the overwhelming majority of gross human rights violations remain the responsibilities of the ethnic elites, e.g. Whites in South Africa or Jews in Israel and Palestine. Löwstedt maintains that there is nothing anti-Semitic about this book, as it deals with human rights in an objective and even-handed way.

"The freedom of public expression in the Anglo-American world faces formidable threats, without parallel since the McCarthy era over half a century ago," says Löwstedt, who has worked for an international press freedom organization for over ten years.

"Some aspects of the current systematic silencing of English-language criticism of Israel and its closest ally, the USA, are even more oppressive than the McCarthyite measures were," he adds. Löwstedt predicts that a new book similar to his, 'Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid', by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, set to be released on November 14, will also run into trouble, despite the high profile of its author.

http://www.amin.org/look/amin/en.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=7&NrArticle=37620&NrIssue=1&NrSection=3