Ignoring 'Why' Again

Update: Glenn Greenwald: Cause and effect in our ever-expanding "war"

Thomas H. Kean and John Farmer Jr, co-chair and senior counsel of the 9/11 commission explain broadly how a disaffected Muslim almost carried out a terrorist attack on Christmas Day, "an eerie echo of the failures that led to 9/11 ." But don’t look for the why any time soon from a large corporate media outlet, despite the fact the why is the most critical question that has a clear explanation. Degenerate, oppressive and brutal Arab regimes propped up by the U.S. combined with U.S.-supported Israeli crimes, and insidious U.S. interventions in the Near-East (Middle-East) region practically guarantee resentment by the Arab ‘street’ and the rise of fanatical, savage resistance—terrorism.

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) (Sept. 14, 2001) [practically alone] ran an important piece after 9/11 sampling the opinion of wealthy Muslims friendly to the U.S. offering why murdering thugs executed what Noam Chomsky called the "most devastating instant toll in history outside of war." The WSJ piece concludes Arab and Israeli state brutality motivated the 9/11 (and by logic) the would-be Christmas Day terrorists.

This is a truth not often told in the corporate media, or acknowledged by President Obama outlining what "his Administration is doing to keep America safe", despite the fact that the fundamental geo-political situation has not changed in over 60 years.

Writes Chomsky a year after 9/11 (don't look for him on CNN anytime soon) in a sensible explanation of why they do it:

[F]or those who hope to reduce the likelihood of further crimes of a similar nature, are the background conditions from which the terrorist organisations arose, and that provide a mass reservoir of sympathetic understanding for at least parts of their message, even among those who despise and fear them.

In George Bush's plaintive words, ‘Why do they hate us?’ The question is not new, and answers are not hard to find. Forty-five years ago, President Dwight D. Eisenhower and his staff discussed what he called the ‘campaign of hatred against us’ in the Arab world, ‘not by the governments but by the people’. The basic reason, the National Security Council advised, is the recognition that the US supports corrupt and brutal governments that block democracy and development, and does so because of its concern ‘to protect its interest in Near East oil’. The Wall Street Journal found much the same when it investigated attitudes of wealthy westernised Muslims after 9/11, feelings now exacerbated by specific US policies with regard to Israel-Palestine and Iraq.

Commentators generally prefer a more comforting answer: their anger is rooted in resentment of our freedom and love of democracy, their cultural failings tracing back many centuries, their inability to take part in the form of ‘globalisation’ (in which they happily participate), and other such deficiencies. More comforting, perhaps, but not wise.

We read the why more often through the Net now-a-days. Consider William Pfaff in TruthDig:

It is not widely understood that the policy objective of al-Qaida is not to attack the Western countries, an objective that would accomplish nothing for the cause. Bringing down a Western airliner or blowing up a building in the United States or Britain is of no interest in itself to the terrorists, since the Islamic radical does no good by simply killing unbelievers. The ultimate purpose of al-Qaida is to bring about an upheaval in the Islamic world in which Islam can be rescued from corrupted governments and degenerate practices. ... [T]he Taliban and al-Qaida are not fighting against corrupt governments in order to reform them. They want to destabilize and eventually destroy all of them so as to clear a political space in which 40 million Pashtuns and their fellow Sunni Arabs can create a new political dispensation of true believers, while the West declines. That is fantasy, but it is a fantasy in which the United States and NATO are unwittingly playing leading roles.

They don't "hate us for our freedom." They love us for denying their freedom—as we and our allies of a sort are then the supposed monolithic bogeyman without which murdering and relatively small-numbered movements of little resources hold little appeal.

To ask why is to think, an activity not acclaimed in American political culture.

Defenders of Christ and War

It's takes a sense of entitlement to kill someone, more so to self-consciously prepare to kill someone. Some serving in the U.S. military seeing themselves on a holy mission from a Christian God are up to the task, a little too enthusiastically for Americans who want their country officially secular and substantively humanistic.

Concerns about a growing dominionist Christian movement seeking to control the U.S. military academies and foreign policy persist as America continues its two or three wars in what many fundamentalist American Christians consider a holy battle against Islam.

I'm hoping one episode from last year pertaining to military-dominionist Christians gets cleared up.

Last year, I wrote a piece, The Crusades, Still Killing for Christ, about the the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) and its founder and president, Mikey Weinstein working for a military free of religious coercion. The piece attracted the attention and comments of one gentleman named "Donnie" who proceeded to badmouth the MRFF and Weinstein.

The funny thing is, this anonymous Donnie bears a striking resemblance in tone and language to one Col Donald P. Higgins, "the key, on-scene, Inspector General investigator for the Department of Defense/United States Air Force in the 2005 investigation" of Weinstein's charges of religions coercion and proselytizing at the United States Air Force Academy.

Higgins appears a nut who, after investigating anti-Semitism and proselytizing at the United States Air Force Academy actually sent e-mails to Weinstein last year composed of fabricated news articles mocking Weinstein, prompting a Sept. 2, 2009 response letter by Weinstein to U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. [See Fake, Col Higgins-authored Washington Times Article, and Fake, Col Higgins-authored New York Times Article.]

Same guy making comments to the The Crusades, Still Killing for Christ piece?

I did on a trace on the Internet Provider (IP) address and this Donnie was commenting from an IP address at the University of Arkansas Community College at Morrilton, 1.7 miles from Col Donald Higgins’ home in rural Arkansas near Pine Bluff.

I asked Weinstein about the comments and said, "“If this is [Col.] Higgins, he is one crazy case. I can’t believe the IG’s office would assign Higgins as an investigator looking into proselytizing and religious coercion. Is this the same guy?”

Weinstein didn't know for sure and Higgins refused to return phone calls.

Donnie responded to a query asking if his name is Higgins with this comment (reading in part):

That is certainly not my name, Leon. Are you a lawyer? Are you going to sue me to shut me up? That seems to be the favored MRFF tactic whenever someone uses facts to disagree with Weinstein or his mouthpieces like you--at least that's the way I read his vicious propaganda.

Thinking this matter might get cleared up some time this year.

- via mal contends

David Corn: Progressives' Waning Support Will Cost Obama, Dems

David Corn in Politics Daily:

Yet Obama and his aides should not ignore the spreading anxiety among his liberal fans. The folks who I've talked with -- in conversations that often feel like counseling sessions -- have said they are unlikely to hit the pavement for Obama and the D's in 2010. They felt empowered by Obama's campaign in 2008; they feel alienated from politics today. Disenchantment is not what you want in your base when you're heading toward a tough mid-term election.

60 Minutes on Screwing Veterans

Sixty Minutes' segment last night on the U.S. Dept of Veterans Affairs left out the national veterans service orgs' complicity in screwing our veterans, the document shredding, the abuse of the DVA police, C-file altering and fraud, the Bush-Cheney administration and rightwing hostility, but the show offers the public insight into a deplorable deny-delay culture that is common knowledge among veterans and advocates. [From Veterans for Common Sense: Extra: Watch extented segment posted at CBS News featuring Veterans for Common Sense. Extra: Read how VA tried to launch a pre-emptive strike against 60 Minutes and VCS at VAWatchDog.org.]

Jailed Wisconsin Veteran Case Gets More Bizarre

What does the U.S. government do with a veteran who blows the whistle on the U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs (DVA) shreddergate scandal and who badgers the DVA as he “tenaciously pursues his claim for disability benefits," telling DVA staff that they are a bunch of "bureaucratic assholes?" The Bush-Cheney DVA and the U.S. Dept. of Justice targeted, convicted, and impoverished this Wisconsin Navy veteran on trumped-up charges of wire fraud.

Specifics, say the U.S. government, are that Navy Airman Keith Roberts and Gary Holland (who was crushed to death by a C-54 aircraft at an airbase in Naples, Italy, back in 1969) were not friends [despite their parallel service histories] and Roberts exaggerated his efforts to rescue his fellow airman, [despite the fact that he was on line duty, and subsequently at least one veteran present has corroborated Roberts' actions]. Yeah, that's right, those are the specifics of the prosecution's criminal case hatched back in 2005-2006 to shut up and retaliate against a veteran who had become, according to a Milwaukee DVA regional hospital source, a "belligerent ass." [A background source at the Clement J. Zablocki VA Medical Center in Milwaukee e-mailed the Lee Rayburn radio show in Madison in early June 2007 after a program about the Roberts case and asked to remain anonymous out of fear of losing his job. "I'd have to say that you guys are TOTALLY (uppercase in the original) right about Roberts' conviction being bullshit. ..." Disability claim denied and off to jail.

In the latest developments, Roberts, a political prisoner of the Republican Party, now reportedly embittered and feeling hopeless, is expected to be released from federal prison in March after serving almost four years behind bars.

He still has a rare case [Keith A. Roberts v. Eric K. Shinseki (05-2425)] pending before an en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) that issued what appears to be a bizarre order on December 29, 2009.

Roberts and the DVA

Roberts was advised in 2002 by the late Jim Henning, a Shawano County (Wisconsin) Veteran's Service Officer, to apply for an earlier retroactive date for his PTSD disability benefits predicated in part by his witnessing Holland being crushed to death and related trauma.

Bad move.

Critics and veteran groups rightly accused the Bush administration of the unprecedented politicalization of the Department of Justice and the DVA, and see the indictment and conviction of Roberts (and other veterans) on charges of wire fraud as a consequence of this politicalization that discourages Vietnam-era veterans from seeking PTSD benefits, per the views of the American Enterprise Institute's Dr. Sally Satel.

Roberts was diagnosed with PTSD and granted disability benefits in 1999, but became suspicious that the DVA was altering his Claim file (C-file), and he loudly accused the VA of engaging in fraud in phone conversations. Ultimately, the VA and then US Attorney Stephen Biskupic turned Roberts' charge around, and charged and convicted Roberts with fraud, an injustice that still has veterans all over the country shaking their heads in disbelief.

U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC)

Now, almost five years after Roberts' case has been before CAVC, the Court is ordering litigants to product "memoranda of law addressing the meaning and applicability of 38 U.S.C. § 6103(d)(1) [a federal regulation]." The problem is that this case has absolutely nothing to do with this federal regulation that relates to a veteran's residency of a particular state, nor has any party in this case ever raised the issue. Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot.

Writes Judge Lawrence B. Hagel who dissented from the Court in an extraordinary written opinion on a Court order for litigants to produce memoranda of law (reproduced in full below):

Hagel, Judge, dissenting: It is not my practice to object to a request by fellow jurists to seek additional briefing in a case to enable them to make a more informed decision. The procedural history of this case, however, compels me to depart from this view, in which I strongly believe. Consequently, I register my strong objection to the issuance of this briefing order for the following reasons:

1. Mr. Roberts's appeal was filed on August 26, 2005. This matter has now been before the Court for more than four years and four months. Briefing on this matter can serve no purpose but to further deprive, for no good reason, the parties of a decision in this matter. This is especially so in the light of the fact that neither party has raised the issues listed on the briefing order nor did the Court inquire about them in or in light of the numerous presentations to the Court, which include numerous supplemental briefings and two oral arguments.

2. The briefing order would have the parties discuss the applicability of 38 U.S.C. § 6103. Section 6103, on its face, does not apply to the facts of this case, as Mr. Roberts was "a resident of, or domiciled in, a State at the time the [fraudulent] act or acts occurred." 38 U.S.C. § 6103(d)(1). Accordingly, he is simply not subject to the forfeiture provisions of section 6103(a) and any briefing on the matter will surely be superfluous to the issues actually before the Court.

3. Neither party contends, nor has ever contended, that section 6103 has any relevance to Mr.Roberts' appeal, and the issue has not been raised at any stage of these proceedings. The Court's issuance of this briefing order invites the Secretary to once again change his position regarding the laws and regulations applicable to Mr. Roberts' appeal.

4. Given that Mr. Roberts was not criminally convicted of fraud until more than a year after the Board decision in this case affirmed that VA's severance of service connection was proper, I fail to see the relevance of the third question to be briefed regarding VA's ability to initiate severance proceedings once a veteran has been convicted of fraud in a Federal criminal proceeding.

5. In light of the delay already endured by the parties and the fact that both have a right to appeal our decision, whatever it may be, it is time to stop wringing our hands and issue a decision in this case. My view of the insistence to issue this briefing order was expressed more succinctly by the noted social commentator Will Rogers when he observed, 'Even if you are on the right track, you will get run over if you just sit there.'

For these reasons, I respectfully dissent from the Court's issuance of this order.

On a personal note, I have reported on this case for years and I would hate to wager anything on a just ruling from any judicial body despite the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's July 12, 2008 opinion reading in part: "The record might also have supported a jury determination that Mr. Roberts sincerely believed that his statements were true and that he had no intention to defraud the Government," written without consideration of any exculpatory evidence that has come forward since 2005.

Israel Arrests Nuke Whistleblower ... Again

Won't Israel ever get tired of being anti-liberty, anti-peace, and anti-justice? Israel ought to just join the many Arab autocracies in the region, they have much in common. Israel has arrested Mordechai Vanunu yet again. [I would toss in a place to writer letters of support for the man, but Israel won't allow Vanunu to receive them.]

His crime: "Suspicion" of "meeting with foreigners." Vanunu is not allowed to leave Israel or meet with "foreigners", decades after alerting the world that Israel developed nuclear weapons of mass destruction.
*******
by Daniel Ellsberg

Mordechai Vanunu — my friend, my hero, my brother — has again been arrested in Israel on "suspicion" of the "crime" of "meeting with foreigners." I myself have been complicit in this offense, traveling twice to Israel for the express purpose of meeting with him, openly, and expressing support for the actions for which he was imprisoned for over eighteen years. His offense has been to defy openly and repeatedly ,conditions put on his freedom of movement and associations and speech after he had served his full sentence, restrictions on his human rights which were a direct carry-over from the British Mandate, colonial regulations in clear violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Such restrictions have no place in a nation evincing respect for a rule of law and fundamental human rights. His arrest and confinement are outrages and should be ended immediately.

My perspective on Mordechai and his behavior was expressed as well as I could do it today in the following op-ed published in 2004 on the day of his release from prison. I can only say that I would be proud to be known as the American Vanunu: though my own possible sentence of 115 years for revealing state secrets was averted by disclosure of government misconduct against me which pales next to the Israeli misconduct in assaulting, drugging and kidnapping Vanunu in the process of bringing him to trial, let alone the eleven years of solitary confinement he was forced to endure.

*** [Published 4/21/04 in the Los Angeles Times]
Mordechai Vanunu is the preeminent hero of the nuclear era. He consciously risked all he had in life to warn his own country and the world of the true extent of the nuclear danger facing us. And he paid the full price, a burden in many ways worse than death, for his heroic act — for doing exactly what he should have done and what others should be doing.

Vanunu's "crime" was committed in 1986, when he gave the London Sunday Times a series of photos he had taken within the Israeli nuclear weapons facility at Dimona, where he had worked as a technician.

For that act — revealing that his country's program and stockpile were much larger than the CIA or others had estimated — Vanunu was kidnapped from the Rome airport by agents of the Israeli Mossad and secretly transported back for a closed trial in which he was sentenced to 18 years in prison.

He spent the first 11 1/2 years in solitary confinement in a 6-by-9-foot cell, an unprecedented term of solitary under conditions that Amnesty International called "cruel, inhuman and degrading."

Now, after serving his full term, he is due to be released today. But his "unfreedom" is to be continued by restrictions on his movements and his contacts: He cannot leave Israel, he will be confined to a single town, he cannot communicate with foreigners face to face or by phone, fax or e-mail (purely punitive conditions because any classified information that he may have possessed is by now nearly two decades old).

The irony of all this is that no country in the world has a stronger stake than Israel in preventing nuclear proliferation, above all in the Middle East. Yet Israel's secret nuclear policies — to this day it does not acknowledge that it possesses such weapons — are shortsighted and self-destructive. They promote rather than block proliferation by encouraging the country's neighbors to develop their own, comparable weapons.

This will not change without public mobilization and democratic pressure, which in turn demand public awareness and discussion. It was precisely this that Vanunu sought to stimulate.

Not in Israel or in any other case — not that of the U.S., Russia, England, France, China, India or Pakistan — has the decision to become a nuclear weapons state ever been made democratically or even with the knowledge of the full Cabinet. It is likely that in an open discussion not one of these states could convince its own people or the rest of the world that it had a legitimate reason for possessing as many warheads as the several hundred that Israel allegedly has (far beyond any plausible requirement for deterrence).

More Vanunus are urgently needed. That is true not only in Israel but in every nuclear weapons state, declared and undeclared. Can anyone fail to recognize the value to world security of a heroic Pakistani, Indian, Iraqi, Iranian or North Korean Vanunu making comparable revelations?

And the world's need for such secret-telling is not limited to citizens of what nuclear weapons states presumptuously call rogue nations. Every nuclear weapons state has secret policies, aims, programs and plans that contradict its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the 1995 Declaration of Principles agreed to at the NPT Renewal Conference. Every official with knowledge of these violations could and should consider doing what Vanunu did.

That is what I should have done in the early '60s based on what I knew about the secret nuclear planning and practices of the United States when I consulted at the Defense Department, on loan from the Rand Corp., on problems of nuclear command and control. I drafted the Secretary of Defense Guidance to the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the general nuclear war plans, and the extreme dangers of our practices and plan were apparent to me.

I now feel derelict for wrongfully keeping secret the documents in my safe revealing this catastrophically reckless posture. But I did not then have Vanunu's example to guide me.
When I finally did have an example in front of me — that of young Americans who were choosing to go to prison rather than participate in what I too knew was a hopeless, immoral war — I was inspired in 1971 to turn over a top-secret history of presidential lies about the war in Vietnam to 19 newspapers. I regret only that I didn't do it earlier, before the bombs started falling.

Vanunu should long since have been released from solitary and from prison, not because he has "suffered enough" but because what he did was the correct and courageous thing to do in the face of the foreseeable efforts to silence and punish him.

The outrageous and illegal restrictions proposed to be inflicted on him when he finally steps out of prison after 18 years should be widely protested and rejected, not only because they violate his fundamental human rights but because the world needs to hear this man's voice.

The cult and culture of secrecy in every nuclear weapons state have endangered humanity and continues to threaten its survival. Vanunu's challenge to that wrongful and dangerous secrecy must be joined worldwide.

Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times

--Daniel Ellsberg, a former State Department and Defense Department official, released the 'Pentagon Papers' to the press in 1971.

60 Minutes Takes on the VA

Every veterans' advocate knows well the U.S. Dept of Veterans Affairs is an unholy mess made worse by the American Enterprise Institute and the Bush-Cheney administration. 60 Minutes is on the case.