Saturday, April 09, 2011

Goldstone says he will not retract report

April 6, 2011

(JTA) -- Richard Goldstone said he will not seek to quash his report to the United Nations on Israel's conduct during the Gaza war, despite his retraction of a key finding.

Reports that he told Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai that he would seek to quash the report prepared at the behest of the U.N. Human Rights Council are false, Goldstone told The Associated Press. The report presented to the council in September 2009 accused Israel of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity.

Goldstone, a former South African judge, wrote in an Op-Ed last weekend in The Washington Post that Israel did not intentionally target civilians as a policy during the Gaza War, withdrawing a critical allegation in the Goldstone Report.

"We know a lot more today about what happened in the Gaza war of 2008-09 than we did when I chaired the fact-finding mission appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council that produced what has come to be known as the Goldstone Report," Goldstone wrote. "If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document."

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and a host of Israeli officials and organizations have called on the United Nations to cancel the Goldstone Report following Goldstone's Op-Ed.

Goldstone, who is Jewish, said he accepted an invitation from Yishai to visit Israel and tour its southern communities, which have been besieged by Hamas rockets. Yishai said he called Goldstone to thank him for his reassessment and to invite him to visit the country. Goldstone will visit Israel in July as a guest of Yishai.

Prodded by Danon, U.S. lawyers set to sue Goldstone

April 7, 2011

JERUSALEM (JTA) -- A group of American Jewish lawyers is set to file a civil lawsuit against Richard Goldstone initiated by Israeli lawmaker Danny Danon.

The class action suit against the author of the Goldstone Report, a United Nations document about Israel's conduct during the monthlong Gaza war in the winter of 2008-09, is set to be filed next week in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan by attorney Steve Goldberg, according to a statement issued Wednesday from Danon's office.

Danon met with the attorneys during a recent visit to the United States, the statement said. It gave no further information on Goldberg or the other attorneys involved in the suit.

The lawsuit will demand that Goldstone publicly apologize to the State of Israel and pay a symbolic amount of damages for the accusations he made in the U.N. Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict report.

"The Goldstone Report is nothing less than a modern version of the infamous blood libels against the Jewish people," said Danon. "The distorted image that Judge Goldstone spread about Israel and the Israel Defense Forces has caused immeasurable damage to our citizens, and it will continue to do so for many years to come. I call on Goldstone to publicly apologize for his erroneous report with the hope that perhaps this will begin to repair some of the immense damage that has been inflicted on the international standing of the State of Israel."

The Jerusalem Post reported that Danon said he plans to file a similar lawsuit in Israel that would go into effect if Goldstone visits the Jewish state. Goldstone said he will visit Israel in July after being invited by Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai.

Goldstone, a former South African judge, wrote in an Op-Ed last weekend in The Washington Post that Israel did not intentionally target civilians as a policy during the Gaza War, withdrawing a critical allegation in the Goldstone Report.

"We know a lot more today about what happened in the Gaza war of 2008-09 than we did when I chaired the fact-finding mission appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council that produced what has come to be known as the Goldstone Report," Goldstone wrote. "If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document."

In the wake of the Post Op-Ed, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and a host of Israeli officials and organizations have called on the United Nations to cancel the Goldstone Report, which accused Israel of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity.

Goldstone told The Associated Press Wednesday that he will not seek to quash the report, which was presented to the Human Rights Council in September 2009.

Rice: Goldstone report should simply ‘disappear’

April 7, 2011

WASHINGTON (JTA) -- Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, says the Goldstone report is probably beyond fixing and should simply disappear.

Rice, speaking to a hearing Thursday of the U.S. House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, was reacting to congressional calls on Richard Goldstone to amend the 2009 report on the Gaza War that was based on an investigation of a panel convened by the U.N. Human Rights Council.

The panel, chaired by Goldstone, concluded that Israel had targeted civilians as a matter of policy. Goldstone, a former South African judge, recently withdrew that conclusion.

"I'm not sure it can be amended," Rice said of the report. "What we want to see is for it to disappear and no longer be a subject of discussion and debate in the Human Rights Council or the General Assembly or beyond."

Rice has led the effort to stymie the advance of the report through the U.N. system.

Step Assad

Published on The New Republic (http://www.tnr.com)
David Schenker
April 9, 2011 | 12:00 am

During the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Syria’s Assad regime was helping insurgents to cross the border and kill Americans. In response to the Syrian provocation, the Bush administration considered a broad range of policy options. But one family of options always remained off the table: regime change or any combination of pressures that might destabilize Damascus. The prevailing interagency concern was that Syria without Assad could prove even more militant than under his terrorist-supporting regime.

At the Department of Defense—where I worked—we held a dissenting view. While the Pentagon didn’t advocate toppling the Assad regime, we likewise didn’t see an interest in helping to preserve the dictator’s grip on power. In discussing the administration’s Syria policy, then Assistant Secretary of Defense Peter Rodman—a former aide to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger who served in five U.S. administrations—recalled Averell Harriman, the U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1943–1946. It was Harriman, Rodman sardonically noted, who once said, “Stalin I can deal with. It’s the hard-liners in the Kremlin who scare me.”

Three weeks and hundreds of casualties into the Syrian uprising, longstanding concerns about whom and what will replace Assad are resurfacing. So too is the atavistic attachment to a regime that not only has killed thousands of its own citizens, but contributed to the deaths of dozens if not hundreds of U.S. troops and contractors in Iraq. Support for the regime goes beyond the standard “devil you know” rationale. To wit, one commentator in The National Interest recently opined that “Washington knows [Syrian President] Bashar well and it knows how rational and predictable he is in foreign affairs.” No doubt, Assad hasn’t killed millions like Stalin. But he has spent his first decade in power recklessly dedicated to undermining stability—and U.S. interests—in the Middle East.

Here’s the devil we know: Since 2006 alone, Assad’s Syria has exponentially increased the capabilities of the Lebanese Shia militia Hezbollah, providing the organization with advanced anti-ship and highly accurate M-600 missiles, top of the line anti-tank weapons, and has allowed the organization to establish a SCUD base on Syrian soil. At the same time, Assad continues to meddle (and murder) in Lebanon, harbor and support Hamas, and subvert Iraq. Damascus remains a strategic ally of otherwise isolated Tehran. And in 2007, it was revealed that Assad’s Syria was progressing toward building a nuclear weapon. Given the pernicious effect of Assad’s policies on U.S. interests and the region, it’s difficult to imagine that a successor or replacement regime could be worse.

Of course, Washington can not dismiss outright the “perfect storm” scenario. It is possible, for example, that Assad might be replaced by an even more overtly hostile member of his Alawite minority sect. Alternately, the regime could be supplanted by a more militant anti-American Sunni junta, triggering a wholesale massacre of Alawites and a massive emigration of Christians. Perhaps the Assad regime would be replaced by an Islamist theocracy lead by the Muslim Brotherhood, or worse, absent an effective despot, Syria could devolve into chaos, providing an opportunity for Al Qaeda to establish a foothold in the Levant. These scenarios could transpire, and none of them would serve U.S. interests. But neither does Assad, and despite some remaining ill-placed optimism that he will reform, it should by now be clear that the regime is irredeemable.

It perhaps goes without saying that the United States should not be in the business of regime removal in Syria. Yet it’s time to revise the assumption that Washington somehow has a vested interest in Bashar Assad’s political survival. As the brave Syrian people do the hard work and pay a high price to rid themselves of a corrupt, capricious, and brutal dictator, America should not be throwing him a lifeline.

Years ago when I was working in the Bush administration, I was tasked to write an options paper on Syria. Prior to putting pen to paper, I sought the sage counsel of the late Peter Rodman, who, in typical fashion quipped, “Kissinger tasked me to write the same paper in the early 1970s.” Today, 40 years and seven presidents later, the United States is still seeking an effective policy to contend with the Assad regime. Paralyzed by concerns of what comes next, the Obama administration—like the Bush administration before it—continues to cling to the Assad regime. Regrettably, if the Assad regime weathers this storm, hamstrung by ongoing fears of worst-case succession scenarios in Damascus, decades from now Bashar—or his own son Hafez—will remain a policy challenge for the United States.



David Schenker is Aufzien Fellow and director of the Program on Arab Politics at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He served as Levant director in the Pentagon from 2002-2006.

Anger flares at Egypt army for lethal protest raid

By MAGGIE MICHAEL, Associated Press 38 mins ago

CAIRO – Demonstrators burned cars and barricaded themselves with barbed wire in Cairo's central Tahrir Square, demanding the resignation of the military's chief Saturday hours after troops violently dispersed a protest there, killing at least one and injuring 71.

In the pre-dawn raid on the square, hundreds of soldiers beat protesters with clubs and fired into the air in the square, highlighting the rising tensions between protesters and the military leaders whom they praised in Tahrir two months ago when President Hosni Mubarak fell from power.

Several thousand protesters, some armed with sticks and other makeshift weapons, had moved back into the square by Saturday afternoon. They vowed not to leave until the defense minister, Field Marshal Mohammed Hussein Tantawi, resigns. Tantawi, a Mubarak appointee, leads the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, which rules Egypt now and is made up of the military's top generals.

The confrontation could mark a key juncture in Egypt's upheaval. For weeks, protest leaders have been critical of the military's handling of the post-Mubarak transition and sought to pressure it to change, but both sides also worked to stay on good terms. Now the overnight clashes resembled the ugliest moments of the 18-day protest movement against Mubarak — with authorities cracking down violence and protesters chanting for the leader's removal.

Soldiers backed with a line of armored vehicles swept into the square around 3 a.m., firing continual barrages into the air with automatic weapons to intimidate protesters camped out in the center of Tahrir. The troops waded into the tent camp, where protesters had formed a human cordon to protect several army officers who had joined their demonstration in defiance of their superiors.

Witnesses reported two killed. Ali Mustafa, a car mechanic who was guarding the "free soldiers" tent, said he saw an attacking soldier stab one of the officers to death with his bayonet. He pointed to a section of pavement stained with blood under a small pile of garbage and food remains.

Another protester was shot dead, said Ahmed Gamal, who was there overnight and said he helped carry away the body. He added that he saw at least two others severely injured by live ammunition. The deaths could not be confirmed.

The Health Ministry issued a statement saying only one person was killed and 71 wounded, some of them with gunshot wounds, including three in critical condition.

Witnesses said the troops beat protesters with batons, fists and kicks and dragged an unknown number of protesters away and threw them into police trucks. Near the famed Egyptian Museum, which overlooks the square, protesters trying to flee were blocked by soldiers, who hit them and knocked them. "I saw them detain a bunch at the museum. They were beating some pretty badly," said one protester, Loai Nagati.

The U.S. State Department called reports that excessive force was used in the square "disturbing" and urged the military to investigate. "People everywhere, including in Egypt, must have the universal rights of assembly and protest," it said in a statement.

As the sun came up Saturday morning, black smoke rose as protesters set fire to three vehicles in the square, including two troop carriers. The square was filled with shattered glass, stones and debris in a scene reminiscent of the protests that brought down Mubarak on Jan. 11. The glass storefront of a KFC on the square was also smashed.

"We are staging a sit-in until the field marshal is prosecuted," said Anas Esmat, a 22-year-old university student in Tahrir as protesters dragged debris and barbed wire to seal off the streets leading into the square.

"The people want the fall of the field marshal," chanted protesters, in a variation on the chant that has become famous in protests across the Middle East. "Tantawi is Mubarak and Mubarak is Tantawi," went another chant.

One of the "free soldiers" who were inside the tent cordoned by the protesters read a statement that was also posted on the officers' Facebook page. He did not identify himself but said that his group decided to stay with the protesters at Tahrir until the Supreme Council is dissolved, its members are prosecuted and Tantawi is sacked.

They also demand the creation of a new presidential council to lead the country, trials for those behind the killings of protesters since Jan. 25 uprising, and speeding up prosecution of "heads of the corruption starting with the ousted president Hosni Mubarak and his family."

The military blamed "outlaws" for rioting and violating the country's 2 a.m. to 5 a.m. curfew.

"The armed forces stress that they will not tolerate any acts of rioting or any act that harms the interest of the country and the people," it said. The military's statement, issued before the Health Ministry's, said there had been no arrests or casualties in the raid.

Some backers of the protest movement on Saturday appeared to be trying to pull both sides back from the confrontation.

Democracy advocate Mohammed ElBaradei, whose supporters were among those who organized the anti-Mubarak wave of protests, said in a Twitter message, "enduring confidence between the people and the army is a red line which we have to preserve for the sake of the nation. Dialogue is the only alternative."

But he voiced demands similar to those of the Tahrir protesters and called for a "quick response to the demands of the revolution."

The fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood, as well, condemned any effort to divide the people and the army, calling them "one hand." But it noted that "there are many people's demands that have not been met until now."

The confrontation was a sharp contrast to the warmth protesters expressed toward the military during and immediately following the 18-day wave of mass demonstrations that led to Mubarak's ouster. Many praised the military for refusing to fire on protesters, and welcomed the army's move to step in to rule.

But tensions have since grown. Reports have emerged of some protesters arrested and tortured by the military in past weeks. Many have complained that the military's handling of the transition to democracy has been too secretive, ignoring some demands, and too fast.

In particular, anger has also grown over the failure so far to prosecute Mubarak and his family over rampant corruption during their rule. Prosecutors have put on trial or started investigations against a string of former senior figures from Mubarak's regime on allegations of corruption, exploiting their positions to amass personal fortunes and other crimes.

But so far, there has been no move against Mubarak or his son Gamal, who had been widely seen as his choice as successor. Since his ouster, Mubarak and his family have been under house arrest at a presidential palace in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, their assets frozen.

The overnight clashes came hours after tens of thousands massed in Tahrir Square on Friday in one of the biggest protests in weeks, demanding that the military prosecute Mubarak and his family. Many protesters accused the miiltary leadership of protecting Mubarak, a former military man himself. More than in previous protests, chants and banners Friday directly criticized the Supreme Council and Tantawi, a former Mubarak loyalist.

Frictions with the military began in the evening Friday. After nightfall, military police tried several times to move in and detain the officers who had joined the demonstration, but protesters pushed them back. At one point, protesters pushed and shoved an army general, tearing his cap from his head.

After the attack in the early hours of the morning, the scene was chaotic. Families who had camped out in the protest tent searched for children who got lost in the mayhem. Outside, protesters scuffled with soldiers on side streets, chanting, "Field Marshal, tell your soldiers, we aren't leaving."

___

AP correspondent Sarah El Deeb contributed to this report.

Jury wastes little time acquitting Cuban militant

Posted on Fri, Apr. 08, 2011
By WILL WEISSERT
Associated Press

During an 11-week trial that featured a seemingly endless parade of 24 witnesses, federal prosecutors meticulously presented the U.S. government's case against an elderly ex-CIA agent from Cuba accused of lying during immigration hearings.

Yet it took a Texas jury barely three hours Friday to shrug all that off and exonerate 83-year-old Luis Posada Carriles of all 11 counts.

Posada spent much of his life working to destabilize communist governments throughout Latin America and was often supported by Washington. He is Public Enemy No. 1 in his homeland, and even considered ex-President Fidel Castro's personal nemesis.

But shortly after leaving the courthouse, Posada told reporters that his days of promoting regime-change in Cuba are behind him.

"I see liberty at the end of my life. I have no aspirations in Cuba, expect maybe to see the beaches," he said. "I hope the Lord gives me a few more years so I can see them again."

"This trial was not a vindication of any kind of violence toward Cuba," added his lead attorney, Miami-based Arturo Hernandez. "This trial was a statement of whether or not the government had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Posada Carriles had lied."

After their verdict, jurors were escorted out a backdoor and whisked away in a court van. What moved them to acquit so quickly was not clear.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Timothy Reardon said only that "we respect the jury's decision."

Faced with international pressure and its own stated hardline stance against terrorism, the U.S. government has been seeking to convict Posada for years. But its cases against him have always relied - rather ironically - on charging a former spy with lying.

Posada participated indirectly in the Bay of Pigs invasion and was a CIA operative until 1976. That same year, he moved to Venezuela and was arrested for planning the 1976 bombing of a Cuban airliner that killed 73 people. But he was acquitted by a military tribunal, then escaped from prison while still facing a civilian trial.

In the 1980s, Posada helped the U.S. funnel support to Nicaraguan Contra rebels, and in 2000, was arrested in Panama amid a plot to kill Castro during a summit there. He was pardoned in 2004.

Posada sneaked into the U.S. the following March and underwent naturalization hearings in El Paso. He was placed in immigration detention and accused of lying while under oath during those proceedings about how he reached U.S. soil, facing immigration fraud and perjury charges when his first trial opened in El Paso in 2007.

But U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone freed Posada and threw that case out, chastising the government for using Posada's hearing as a pretext to build a criminal case against him.

Her decision was overturned on appeal, however, and the case returned to Cardone's court.

Prosecutors added four additional charges, three of them obstruction, alleging that Posada further lied during the immigration hearings about masterminding of a wave of 1997 bombings at Cuban tourist sites that killed an Italian tourist and wounded about a dozen other people.

During a 1998 interview with The New York Times, Posada was quoted as saying he planned the bombings and clarified that they were meant to hurt tourism in Cuba, but not kill anyone.

His new trial opened before Cardone on Jan. 10 and saw prosecutors call a long line of witnesses, including Ann Louise Bardach, who interviewed Posada for the Times. Compelled to testify by subpoena, she said Posada granted the interview because he was angry that the bombings hadn't garnered much attention from the U.S. press.

Bardach said the jury heard only about two of her six hours of taped interviews with Posada - and even those were heavily edited by court officials.

"It doesn't seem quite right to link our tapes to the verdict," she said.

Cuba and Venezuela would like to try Posada for the 1997 hotel bombings or the downing of the 1976 airliner, but a U.S. immigration judge has previously ruled that he can't be sent to either country, for fear he could be tortured. He has escaped deportation elsewhere since no other nation is willing to take him.

Jose Pertierra, the Washington-based lawyer representing Venezuela in its case against Posada, sat through every day of his trial. He said he hopes the U.S. now heeds Venezuela's call to send Posada to that country to face 76 counts of murder.

"The theater was worth more than the evidence in this case," Pertierra said.

Anti-Castro CIA operative acquitted of lying about entering U.S.

Apr 08, 2011
By Michael Winter, USA TODAY

In El Paso, Texas, this afternoon, an 83-year-old Cuban who worked decades for the CIA trying to violently topple Fidel Castro and other leftist Latin Americans has been acquitted of lying to U.S. immigration officials about how he entered the country in 2005 after being pardoned for plotting to kill Castro in Panama.

The Associated Press reports that Luis Posada Carriles, a top figure in militant exile groups, smiled broadly at the jury verdict on all 11 counts of perjury, immigration fraud and obstruction of justice. He hugged his three attorneys, one of whom wept.

During the 13-week trial, prosecutors argued that Posada had lied about sneaking into the country in March 2005, months after the pardon. The government also said he lied by denying that he had masterminded a hotel bombings in Cuba in 1997 that killed a tourist and wounded 12 other people. In a 1998 New York Times interview he said he planned the attacks, but later recanted.

Declassified CIA and FBI documents identify him as an "engineer" of the 1976 terrorist bombing of a Cubana Airlines flight that killed 73 passengers.

Posada participated in the doomed 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, and helped the Reagan administration funnel support to Nicaraguan Contra rebels in the 1980s. He was convicted of plotting to kill Castro during a 2000 summit of Latin leaders, and was pardoned in 2004 by Panama's president.

A U.S. immigration judge orderedPosada deported in 2005, but ruled out Cuba or Venezuela because of fears he might be tortured. No other country has accepted him. He was freed on bond in 2007 and traveled to Miami, where he has sought asylum.

Thursday, April 07, 2011

Glenn Beck to end daily TV program on Fox News Channel

By Paul Farhi, Wednesday, April 6, 11:40 PM
The Washington Post

Glenn Beck and Fox News Channel formally agreed Wednesday to end Beck’s daily program, which will dissolve a 27-month marriage beset by outside pressures and internal tensions sometime this year.

The conservative host and the news channel, started by conservative billionaire Rupert Murdoch as an avowed counterweight to the liberal news media, agreed that they could not agree to continue, but neither side blamed the other or disclosed who was at fault. Beck will “transition” off Fox sometime this year, Fox and Beck’s production company, Mercury Radio Arts, said jointly.

Beck’s sometimes outrageous pronouncements — he infamously said that President Obama has “a deep-seated hatred for white people” — were good for drawing attention and viewers, but they made him radioactive among sponsors. They also put him out of step with Fox News’ overall ethic, which is heavy on pugnacious conservative commentary but eschews the sort of apocalyptic rhetoric Beck favors.

Beck’s program has remained a solid draw for Fox despite a gradual slide in the ratings from its mid-2009 peak. Airing at 5 p.m., a period when fewer people are watching TV than during evening prime-time hours, “Glenn Beck” still draws more than 2 million viewers, making it one of the top attractions on a cable news channel. Beck’s ratings sometimes approached those of Fox’s “O’Reilly Factor,” consistently the most popular program on cable news.

But Beck’s broadsides alienated a number of organizations that fought back by pressuring his advertisers and embarrassing his bosses. Color of Change, a group that advocates on behalf of African Americans, started an advertiser boycott in July 2009; its efforts were abetted by Media Matters for America, a liberal watchdog organization that made Fox News in general, and Beck in particular, its raison d’etre.

Jewish groups also were angered by Beck’s habit of denouncing his political opponents by comparing them to Nazis. Their anger was further stoked by Beck’s three-part series on liberal billionaire philanthropist George Soros, whom Beck described as a Nazi collaborator during Soros’s boyhood in occupied Hungary.

After a coalition of Jewish rabbis called on Murdoch to sanction Beck in a full-page ad in the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal in January, Beck further inflamed his Jewish critics by comparing Reform rabbis to “radicalized Islam” on his syndicated radio program a month later.

The outrage got to Murdoch and Fox News Chief Executive Roger Ailes, said Simon Greer, who heads the Jewish Funds for Justice, which organized the Wall Street Journal ad.

“I think Fox News and its leadership value their relationships with the American Jewish community, and Glenn Beck has consistently insulted and disrespected Jews to such an extent that it was bad for Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes’ worldview,” Greer said in an interview.

Leading conservatives have taken issue with Beck lately, too. Pat Buchanan and neoconservative columnist William Kristol, among others, criticized Beck’s comments about the Middle East after Beck asserted that the uprisings were part of an alliance between American liberals and Muslims seeking to create a caliphate that would spread radical Islamic ideology across the region.

“When Glenn Beck rants about the caliphate taking over the Middle East from Morocco to the Philippines, and lists (invents?) the connections between caliphate-promoters and the American left, he brings to mind no one so much as Robert Welch and the John Birch Society,” Kristol wrote in the Murdoch-owned Weekly Standard in February. “He’s marginalizing himself.”

Fox offered no comment Wednesday beyond a joint statement in which Ailes offered praise for Beck. It’s unclear who will replace Beck at 5 p.m., although longtime Fox commentator Andrew Napolitano matched Beck’s ratings when he filled in for Beck in mid-March.

Fox and Beck’s production company said that they will work together to develop TV shows for Fox News and for Fox News’ Web site, but no projects have been disclosed.

The absence of corporate support for Beck’s daily program has made some skeptical about Beck’s reported interest in taking over a cable TV channel and infusing it with programming similar to his Fox show. Oprah Winfrey has such a venture, called the Oprah Winfrey Network, or OWN, that has gotten off to a rocky start.

The news of Beck’s imminent departure from Fox brought a series of triumphant reactions from the groups that have opposed him, including Washington-based Media Matters, an organization that is partially funded by one of Soros’s philanthropic foundations.

“This is a good development for the American media,” said Ari Rabin-Havt, an executive vice president of the organization. “Glenn Beck was such an ugly and hateful voice on the air that it’s good for everyone.” Media Matters has accused Beck of inciting violent attacks on organizations affiliated with Soros.

Beck has also been controversial within Fox News; some journalists felt his blend of sometimes wild speculation and advocacy were out of sync with a network that produces news programming. Beck’s show precedes an hour-long newscast hosted by Bret Baier, creating something of a mismatch in tone.

Beck’s morning radio program, which is syndicated to hundreds of stations, will continue.

In an interview with the Associated Press on Wednesday, Ailes declined to spell out the details of Fox’s parting with Beck. “Half of the headlines say he’s been canceled,” Ailes said. “The other half say he quit. We’re pretty happy with both of them.”

farhip@washpost.com

Why Glenn Beck lost it

By Dana Milbank, Wednesday, April 6, 5:19 PM
The Washington Post

On Friday, the unemployment rate dropped to 8.8 percent, as businesses added jobs for the 13th straight month.

On Wednesday, Fox News announced that it was ending Glenn Beck’s daily cable-TV show.

These are not unrelated events.

When Beck’s show made its debut on Fox News Channel in January 2009, the nation was in the throes of an economic collapse the likes of which had not been seen since the 1930s. Beck’s angry broadcasts about the nation’s imminent doom perfectly rode the wave of fear that had washed across the nation, and the relatively unknown entertainer suddenly had 3 million viewers a night — and tens of thousands answering his call to rally at the Lincoln Memorial.

But as the recession began to ease, Beck’s apocalyptic forecasts and ominous conspiracies became less persuasive, and his audience began to drift away. Beck responded with a doubling-down that ultimately brought about his demise on Fox.

He pushed further into dark conspiracies, urging his viewers to hoard food in their homes and to buy freeze-dried meals for sustenance when civilization breaks down. He spun a conspiracy theory in which the American left was in cahoots with an emerging caliphate in the Middle East. And, most ominously, he began to traffic regularly in anti-Semitic themes.

This vile turn for Beck reached its logical extreme two weeks ago, when he devoted his entire show to a conspiracy theory about various bankers, including the Rothschilds, to create the Federal Reserve. To make this case, Beck hosted the conspiracy theorist G. Edward Griffin, who has publicly argued that the anti-Semitic tract “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” “accurately describes much of what is happening in our world today.”

Griffin’s Web site dabbles in a variety of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, including his view that “present-day political Zionists are promoting the New World Order.”

A month earlier, Beck, on his radio program, had described Reform rabbis as “generally political in nature,” adding: “It’s almost like Islam, radicalized Islam in a way.”

A few months before that, he had attacked the Jewish billionaire George Soros, a Holocaust survivor, as a “puppet master” and read descriptions of him as an “unscrupulous profiteer” who “sucks the blood from people.” Beck falsely called Soros “a collaborator” with Nazis who “saw people into the gas chambers.”

Fox deserves credit for finally putting an end to this. Its joint statement with Beck’s production company, claiming that they will “work together to develop and produce a variety of television projects,” is almost certainly window-dressing; you can be confident Fox won’t have Beck reopening what his Fox News colleague Shepard Smith dubbed the “fear chamber.”

In banishing Beck, about whom I wrote a critical book last year, Fox has made an important distinction: It’s one thing to promote partisan journalism, but it’s entirely different to engage in race baiting and fringe conspiracy claims. Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity may have their excesses, but their mainstream conservatism is in an entirely different category from Beck.

Fox has rightly, if belatedly, declared that there is no place for Beck’s messages on its airwaves, and Beck will return to the fringes, where such ideas have always existed. Because his end-of-the-world themes will no longer be broadcast by a mainstream outlet, there will be less of a chance for him to inspire off-balance characters to violence.

There are, happily, signs that the influences that undermined Beck are doing the same to other purveyors of fear. The March Washington Post-ABC News poll found that Sarah Palin’s favorability rating among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents had dropped to 58 percent from 70 percent in October and 88 percent in 2008. Her negative ratings among Republicans are higher than those of other prospective Republican presidential candidates.

In another indication of abating anger, a CNN poll released last week found that the percentage of the public viewing the Tea Party unfavorably had increased to 47 percent, from 26 percent in January 2010. Thirty-two percent have a favorable view.

Beck, in losing his mass-media perch, is repeating the history of Father Charles Coughlin, the radio priest of the Great Depression. Economic hardship gave him an audience even greater than Beck’s, but as his calls to drive “the money changers from the temple” became more vitriolic, his broadcast sponsors dropped him. He gradually faded from relevance as his angry themes lost their hold on Americans and his anti-Semitism became more pronounced.

It is a sign of the nation’s health and resilience that Beck, after 27 months at Fox, is meeting a similar end.

danamilbank@washpost.com

Wednesday, April 06, 2011

FBI on alert for possible terrorist attack from Libya

“We want to make certain that we are on guard with the possibility of terrorist attacks emanating somewhere out of Libya, whether it be Gadhafi's forces or in eastern Libya the opposition forces who may have amongst them persons who in the past have had associations with terrorist groups,” Mueller

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is on alert for any possible terrorist attack against the United States emanating from Libya, which is undergoing armed clashes between the government forces and rebels.
clearpxl

“We want to make certain that we are on guard with the possibility of terrorist attacks emanating somewhere out of Libya, whether it be [Col. Muammar] Gaddafi's forces or in eastern Libya the opposition forces who may have amongst them persons who in the past have had associations with terrorist groups,” FBI Director Robert Mueller, told lawmakers at a Congressional hearing.

“We want to make certain that what is happening in Libya, to the extent that we have information in the United States that may bear on what is happening in Libya, the opposition forces, who they are, what they're doing, we have a number of Libyans here in the United States, whether it be students or visitors, and we're seeking that information,” Mueller said in response to a question from Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA).

Mueller acknowledged that the FBI has been questioning a large number of Libyans living in the United States.

“There are individuals who were previously affiliated with the Libyan government who happen to be in the United States -- they may have been here representing Libya and at various international institutions and the like and to the extent that they have renounced or denounced Gadhafi, are willing to be interviewed and to give us information as to what may be happening in Libya, we will proceed with those interviews,” Mueller explained.

“In countries such as Libya, where they have foreign establishments, there may well be intelligence officers who are part of those foreign establishments or there may be intelligence officers that are operating in and with different types of cover in the United States. We want to make certain that we've identified these individuals to assure that no harm comes from them, knowing that they may well have been associated with the Gadhafi regime,” the FBI chief added.

Mueller was responding to a question from Wolf, who referred to a Wall Street Journal article that said the FBI has begun questioning Libyans living in the U.S. as part of an effort to identify spies or terrorists and to collect information that might help allied military operations.

“The move reflects concerns among U.S. officials in the wake of an allied bombing campaign that established a no-fly zone in Libya to prevent the massacre of anti-government rebels that Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi might try to orchestrate revenge attacks against the U.S. citizens,” Wolf said.

“There was a news article about that we were talking to a number of Libyans in the United States about, I guess we're concerned about the possible terrorist attack of some sort. Can you tell us anything about that in open session?” asked Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA).

“With regard to students or visitors from Libya here in the United States who may have information on what is happening in Libya, we have an outreach effort to them as well to obtain what information they might have that may alert us to any attempts at retaliation within the United States or elsewhere by pro-Gaddafi individuals,” Mueller answered.

FBI Questioning Libyans

Agency Aims to Prevent Revenge Attacks in America, Help Military Campaign
By Devlin Barrett

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has begun questioning Libyans living in the U.S., part of an effort to identify any Libyan-backed spies or terrorists, and collect any information that might help allied military operations.
The move reflects concerns among U.S. officials—in the wake of an allied bombing campaign that established a no-fly zone over Libya to prevent the massacre of antigovernment rebels—that Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi might try to orchestrate revenge attacks against U.S. citizens.
U.S. counterterrorism officials believe that the threat of Libyan-backed terrorism is slightly higher for Europe than for the U.S. Officials on both sides of the Atlantic are searching for signs of nascent terror plots directed or encouraged from Tripoli.
FBI officials declined to comment Monday on the program.
A similar intelligence-gathering effort in 2003, called Operation Darkening Clouds, led to strong objections from the New York Civil Liberties Union. The organization sued in 2008 over that secret operation, calling it invasive and coercive in its questioning of Iraqi-born people in the U.S.
FBI agents began conducting the interviews this week, according to several people familiar with the matter. The agency's initial focus is on people with personal or professional ties to Libya, which could lead to thousands of interviews. Officials cautioned that figure was a very early estimate.
The FBI is particularly interested in Libyans staying in the U.S. on visas, according to several people who are involved in the matter.
The FBI isn't responding to intelligence pointing to any specific plot or plots, according to people familiar with the matter. Instead, the FBI is trying to determine whether there is a threat to Americans in the U.S. or overseas. FBI agents hope to gain enough information from the interviews to understand how much of a threat Libya poses.The FBI effort has other objectives as well. The agency wants to find anyone trying to gather intelligence in the U.S. on behalf of Mr. Gadhafi. The FBI also wants to gather information about Libya that might be of value to U.S. and allied military personnel engaged in Libya.
The intelligence work is another example of U.S. government resources being used to support the mission in Libya. Central Intelligence Agency personnel are in Libya gathering intelligence about the Gadhafi regime's forces and about opposition parties.
People familiar with the effort said it was similar in its goals and methods to Operation Darkening Clouds, which was launched by the FBI at the outset of the invasion of Iraq. That effort led to the compilation of information on more than 130,000 people, prompting the lawsuit from the New York organization, which criticized what it called the "data mining" effort by the government and the subsequent interviews.
The existence and details of Operation Darkening Clouds stayed secret for years. A 2008 Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by the New York group forced the bureau to turn over internal documents about the operation.
The papers showed the FBI devoted enormous resources to the work, assigning more than 50 agents to it in one field office, New York City, an area that according to a bureau estimate was home to more than 5,000 Iraqi-Americans. At one point, FBI officials estimated that the 2003 effort would involve about 11,000 separate interviews.FBI officials expect the Libyan effort will be on a smaller scale, largely because the number of people from Libya in the U.S. is believed to be much smaller than the number of Iraqis. The 2000 Census recorded more than 5,000 people of Libyan birth in the U.S., compared with a total of nearly 90,000 Iraqi-born people.
Echoes of the Iraq War
In 2002-03, the FBI started collecting information on Iraqis living in the U.S. as part of Operation Darkening Clouds.
*Data was collected on more than 130,000 people.
*An estimated 11,000 people were interviewed over months, starting in March 2003, when U.S. combat in Iraq began.
*Interviews took place nationwide, with many in New York City.
*The FBI drew on investigative databases within at least 29 different agencies, including the Commerce Department, the TSA and the EPA.
*Any related arrests weren't disclosed.
*Details of the secret program emerged in response to 2008 Freedom of Information Act lawsuit from the New York Civil Liberties Union.





Washington Post
April 5, 2011
Pg. 19
Fine Print
Gates Was Clear: It's A Matter Of Time Before Gaddafi Is Gone
By Walter Pincus
It's going to take time before Moammar Gaddafi and his family are gone from power in Libya, and, frankly, the ending may not come until the dictator is assassinated by a member of his family or a Libyan military or security officer.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates delivered those messages to Congress last week as he repeatedly preached patience before the House and Senate armed services committees.
In contrast, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has remained the commander of the impatient crowd, those who want to plunge ahead militarily, ignoring lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan.
There also is a congressional Greek chorus, those Republican and Democratic politicians who now question President Obama's decision to intervene and even his authority to act. They have forgotten that in late February and early March a rush of lawmakers called for a no-fly zone and protection for protesting Libyans.
A bit of background:
*In late February, McCain, along with Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), called for a no-fly zone, arms and humanitarian assistance, as well as recognition of a nascent Libyan opposition group.
*On March 1, the Senate unanimously passed a nonbinding resolution calling on the U.N. Security Council "to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya . . . including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone."
*On March 2, Gates, after noting that there was a lot of "loose talk about some of these military options,'' said that "a no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses."
*On March 4, Gaddafi troops regrouped and attacked protesters, and commentators joined legislators in calls for the president to stop dithering and act. Meanwhile, the French and British governments worked for a Security Council resolution.
*On March 7, the six Persian Gulf states backed a no-fly zone.
*On March 12, the Arab League joined the call for the United Nations to create the zone.
*On March 17, Gaddafi declared that the "moment of truth" had come for Benghazi as his planes dropped bombs on the opposition-controlled city and his tanks and troops moved forward. The Security Council approved the resolution to create a no-fly zone. That night in Washington, Obama met with Gates and his national security team and decided the United States would take the lead in the no-fly program. Plans had already been drawn up in the Pentagon and at NATO for a highly complex operation that would entail dozens of warships, hundreds of aircraft, bases in several countries, and a sophisticated command-and-control operation.
*On March 18, the president discussed his decision with the congressional leadership.
*On March 19, the no-fly zone was initiated along with strikes on Gaddaf's military units on the ground.
Today, nearly three weeks into the operation, Gaddafi remains in power in Tripoli, rebels are in control in Benghazi, ground fighting continues and NATO directs the air war.
Gates told the committees, "The removal of Colonel Gaddafi will likely be achieved over time through political and economic measures and by his own people." The NATO-led operation will aid his departure by degrading his military capability to hold on to power through force, Gates added.
Saying the impromptu early uprisings in Libyan cities showed that citizens were "ready to rise up against this guy," Gates said "significantly" reducing Gaddafi's military capabilities "gives them the opportunity to do that."
The impatient McCain and Lieberman wanted more.
Gates was repeatedly asked when and how Gaddafi would leave. By late afternoon, Gates had sharpened his answer about Gaddafi's possible fate: "A member of his own family kills him or one of his inner circle kills him, or the military fractures, or the opposition with the degradation of Gaddafi's military rises up again and is successful."
McCain had earlier lectured Gates that the "purpose of using military force is to achieve policy goals'' - including "Gaddafi leaving power." Gates said he saw a difference between the political objective of Gaddafi's departure and the military mission. The latter was already successful, he said, then added that he "personally . . . felt strongly" that his mission did not include regime change. "We've tried regime change before, and sometimes it's worked and sometimes it's taken 10 years."
Members also asked about U.S. troops having "boots on the ground" in Libya. The president had said there would be no U.S. ground troops, and Gates emphasized his own view: "Not as long as I'm in this job."
As for the opposition's need for training and command and control, Gates said this was discussed and that other countries had the capability to meet those needs.
And finally, regarding whether Obama abided by the War Powers Act, Gates noted there had been disagreement between the Congress and every president on what the act requires, and Obama had complied when he met with congressional leadership on March 18.





New York Times
April 5, 2011
Pg. 1
Unrest In Yemen Seen As Opening To Qaeda Branch
By Eric Schmitt
WASHINGTON -- Counterterrorism operations in Yemen have ground to a halt, allowing Al Qaeda’s deadliest branch outside of Pakistan to operate more freely inside the country and to increase plotting for possible attacks against Europe and the United States, American diplomats, intelligence analysts and counterterrorism officials say.
In the political tumult surrounding Yemen’s embattled president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, many Yemeni troops have abandoned their posts or have been summoned to the capital, Sana, to help support the tottering government, the officials said. Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the group’s affiliate, has stepped in to fill this power vacuum, and Yemeni security forces have come under increased attacks in recent weeks.
A small but steadily growing stream of Qaeda fighters and lower-level commanders from other parts of the world, including Pakistan, are making their way to Yemen to join the fight there, although American intelligence officials are divided on whether the political crisis in Yemen is drawing more insurgents than would be traveling there under normal conditions.
Taken together, these developments have raised increasing alarm in the Obama administration, which is in the delicate position of trying to ease Mr. Saleh out of power, but in a way to ensure that counterterrorism operations in Yemen will continue unimpeded. These developments may also help explain why the United States has become less willing to support Mr. Saleh, a close ally, given that his value in fighting terrorism has been diminished since demonstrations swept his country.
Some experts on Yemen who have observed Mr. Saleh’s long domination through political shrewdness speculated that he might be deliberately withdrawing his forces from pursuing Al Qaeda to worsen the sense of crisis and force the Americans to back him, rather than push him toward the exits.
But a senior American military officer with access to classified intelligence reports discounted those doubts on Monday: “This is a reflection of the turmoil in the country, not some political decision to stop.”
Mr. Saleh’s son and three nephews are in charge of four of Yemen’s main security and counterterrorism agencies, including the Republican Guard and the Central Security Forces, which are trained and equipped by the United States. If they were forced to step down as part of any deal to remove Mr. Saleh, American officials acknowledge that the country’s counterterrorism efforts would be left in the hands of untested lieutenants.
“We have had a lot of counterterrorism cooperation from President Saleh and Yemeni security services,” Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said March 27 on ABC’s “This Week.” “So if that government collapses or is replaced by one that is dramatically more weak, then I think we’ll face some additional challenges out of Yemen. There’s no question about it. It’s a real problem.”
Perhaps most worrisome, American intelligence officials have collected information from informants and electronic intercepts that Al Qaeda’s branch in Yemen has increased planning discussions about another attack. This increased threat “chatter,” as intelligence officials call the reports, was first reported by The Washington Post late last month, but officials say the trend has continued since then.
The Qaeda group in Yemen is responsible for failed plots to blow up a commercial airliner as it approached Detroit on Dec. 25, 2009, and for planting printer cartridges packed with explosives on cargo planes bound for Chicago last October.
The United States now has about 75 Special Forces trainers and support personnel in Yemen, as well as an unspecified number of Central Intelligence Agency operatives. The Americans in Yemen are working closely with dozens of British special forces and intelligence officers, as well as operatives from Saudi Arabia’s spy agencies. While the Americans largely provide intelligence, the Yemeni counterterrorism troops have conducted raids and attacks on suspected terrorists in recent months.
The suspension of these Yemeni counterterrorism operations and the heightened Al Qaeda activity have prompted the United States Central Command to dust off plans to resume airstrikes against top Qaeda targets if the United States receives solid intelligence about the location of senior militants, a senior military official said.
The United States has not carried out such airstrikes in Yemen since last May, when an attack accidentally killed a deputy governor and set off a huge political dispute with Mr. Saleh. Last year, the United States quietly began patrolling Yemen with armed Predator drones.
One top insurgent on the American target list is Anwar al-Awlaki, the Yemeni-American cleric who is a top propagandist for Al Qaeda. Last Wednesday, Mr. Awlaki broke his silence on the uprisings in the Arab world to speak glowingly in a new issue of the English-language Qaeda magazine Inspire about the toppling of autocratic governments.
Pentagon officials said that the chaotic security conditions in the country might embolden senior Qaeda officials in Yemen to come out of hiding. “If we have Awlaki in our sights, we’ll take a shot,” the senior American military officer said on Monday.
Over the past year, however, the American Special Forces in Yemen have shifted their focus to help the Yemeni security forces carrying out the counterterrorism missions. But those programs to train and assist the Yemenis have also been suspended in the wake of the political tumult. The American Special Forces soldiers are keeping a low profile but are maintaining ties with midlevel and senior Yemeni officers, and provide information on how the military is reacting to the upheaval.
American officials privately concede they have only a marginal influence on Mr. Saleh’s fight for his political survival and exit from power. At best, these officials say, the Americans are looking to identify and carefully support competent lower-ranking officers and civilian officials who could take over the security agencies if Mr. Saleh’s relatives are forced to flee.
Gregory Johnsen, a Princeton scholar who closely tracks militants in Yemen, said the United States’ narrow focus on combating Al Qaeda through military operations overseen by Mr. Saleh and his family means its position could be precarious in a post-Saleh Yemen.
“The U.S. idea of tying counterterrorism to this one family has not been the best way to approach the Al Qaeda problem,” said Mr. Johnsen, who has argued for greater focus on development aid for the impoverished country.
The Yemeni government’s already weak reach is withering by the day, as violent convulsions rack several parts of the impoverished country. American officials said they were watching unrest in Shabwa Province, a Qaeda stronghold, as well as in Jaar, a city in the southern province of Abyan where Al Qaeda is known to have set up a base.
An officer in Yemen’s counterterrorism forces said his unit had not been deployed and was on standby, even though much of the south was apparently outside government control and jihadists had apparently declared a separate emirate in Abyan. Yemeni counterterrorism officers would like to respond, but “we are only door-kickers,” he said. “We need support from the army, and the army is busy splitting.”
Scott Shane and Robert F. Worth contributed reporting from Washington, and Ravi Somaiya from London.





Wall Street Journal
April 5, 2011
Pg. 9
Deaths Raise Pressure In Yemen
By ERIK STIER in San'a, Yemen, and ADAM ENTOUS in Washington
Police opened fire on protesters in the southern Yemen city of Taiz, killing at least 11 people, as the U.S. increased pressure on President Ali Abdullah Saleh to quickly break a stalemate in stalled transition talks focused on easing him out of power.
The U.S. wants the talks accelerated because of concerns the impasse is creating a security vacuum that benefits al Qaeda and invites more violence, officials said. The newfound urgency reflects U.S. intelligence suggesting al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, also known as AQAP, is using the unrest to regroup and to plot fresh attacks on the West.
"There is a gap between what President Saleh said and what the people have asked for," State Department spokesman Mark Toner said. "We've made it clear to President Saleh, both in public as I'm doing now and in private, that violence is not a solution and that an agreement with the opposition needs to be reached as soon as possible."
The White House has sought to encourage negotiations between Mr. Saleh and opposition groups about a peaceful transition of power. Administration officials now want that transition process should start sooner rather than later.
The U.S. considers the Yemen-based al Qaeda affiliate to be the biggest terrorist threat to the U.S. outside Afghanistan and Pakistan.
American special-operation forces have been training Yemeni commandos to fight al Qaeda, and the U.S. military has had an on-again, off-again campaign of airstrikes against militants in the country. The last known U.S. air strike in Yemen occurred in May. U.S. officials attribute the dropoff in strikes to tensions with Mr. Saleh and a lack of actionable intelligence about the whereabouts of al Qaeda leaders in Yemen's rugged tribal areas.
"AQAP is adaptive and they're looking to capitalize on these sort of events, on the instability," an Obama administration official said.
On Monday, uniformed police fired directly into crowds of protesters during a march in the second straight day of violence in Taiz, a city of nearly 500,000, about 120 miles south of the capital, San'a, a witness said. Many of the injured suffered gunshot wounds to the neck and chest, he said.
Mr. Saleh, bolstered by two weeks of massive pro-regime demonstrations, has refused to bow to weeks of protests calling for his resignation. He has rejected as many as seven proposals brought by the opposition to ease him out of power.
Negotiations with the opposition have stalled recently, with no clear solution in sight.
Taiz has consistently been the seat of the country's largest protest movement since calls for Mr. Saleh's resignation began in January. Monday's violence there broke out near a school, witnesses said, placing city residents and children in the middle of the chaos. More than 200 people were injured from police firing on protesters, and 600 people were hospitalized from injuries associated with tear gas, which include seizures and temporary loss of consciousness, medical workers said.
The Taiz crackdown was the most lethal against Yemen's uprising since snipers killed 52 demonstrators in San'a on March 18.
Violence also erupted Monday in the southern coastal city of Hodeida, where gunmen dressed in civilian clothes shot into crowds of demonstrators, wounding seven, according to local reports.
A member for Yemen's opposition said the shootings would give momentum to an international push for Mr. Saleh to step down. "The deaths today in Taiz will be the nail in the coffin of this regime," said Mohammed al-Sabri, spokesman for the Joint Meeting Parties, a coalition of opposition parties.
Hakim Almasmari contributed to this article.




NPR.org
April 4, 2011
Gen. Petraeus Being 'Seriously Considered' For CIA Director, NPR Reports
By Tom Bowman
General David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, is expected to leave that job by early fall. And the question has been, where does he go from there?
Several sources, including government officials, say Petraeus is being seriously considered for CIA director, and would take the job if offered.
The current spy chief, Leon Panetta, is currently seen as the top replacement for Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who says he will step down this year.
White House and Pentagon officials say they will not comment on any personnel changes.
For some time, there was an expectation that Petraeus would take the top NATO military job in Brussels. NATO's current supreme commander, U.S. Adm. James Stavridis, is wrapping up his tour and is expected to become the Navy's next top officer, chief of naval operations.
Sources say Petraeus has cooled on the Brussels job. And there are few high profile military jobs left for him.
The Army chief of staff job has already gone to Gen. Martin Dempsey. And there is little indication that Petraeus is being considered for the top military job in the Pentagon, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Sources say that the current No. 2 Pentagon officer, Marine Gen. James "Hoss" Cartwright, will be nominated for the top job when Adm. Mike Mullen leaves the post in September.
Cartwright was reported to be Obama's "favorite general" in journalist Bob Woodward's book, Obama's Wars. Stavridis is also considered a possible Joint Chiefs chairman. Some close to Petraeus were surprised that a man they described as "the best general of his generation" was not under consideration for that top Pentagon job.
But Petraeus also has his detractors. He's seen as overly ambitious and too political by some of his peers, earning him the nickname "King David."
Putting a senior officer in charge of CIA is not unusual. Panetta's predecessor was retired Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden. And there have been admirals and generals running the spy agency since its beginnings more than 60 years ago. Among the early directors was Walter Bedell Smith, one of then-Gen. Dwight Eisenhower's top aides in World War II.
Petraeus has coordinated with the CIA in his job as commander in Iraq and Afghanistan. And CIA drone strikes have been stepped up in neighboring Pakistan since the early days of the Obama administration.
While it's not certain that Petraeus will get any new job in the administration, NPR reported several weeks ago that his replacement in Afghanistan is expected to be Marine Lt. Gen. John Allen, who is currently the deputy commanding officer of U.S. Central Command, which covers both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Allen gained fame within military circles for his work in Iraq's Anbar Province. He was among the key players in what became known as "The Sunni Awakening." The Americans encouraged the Sunni tribes to turn against al-Qaida and support the Iraqi government. It turned out to be a success and helped drive down the violence in Iraq.
No final decisions have been made on Petraeus's replacement. But sources say Allen was the top pick of the CentCom commander, Marine Gen. James Mattis — as well as Petraeus.
Tom Bowman covers the Pentagon for NPR.

Pulitzer Prize Winner Seymour Hersh And The Men Who Want Him Committed

Pulitzer Prize Winner Seymour Hersh And The Men Who Want Him Committed

Posted By Matthew Phelan On February 23, 2011 @ 6:05 pm In Featured,Original Investigations | No Comments
[1]

(from left to right) Tom Ricks of Foreign Policy magazine and The Washington Post, along with fellow FP editors Joshua Keating and Blake Hounshell all rushed to discredit Hersh and the contents of his January 17th, 2011 speech.

Co-published on Salon.com

It seems unusual for a staid, respected publication (one that has received three National Magazine Awards in just this past decade) to start treating a celebrated journalist (who himself has won two National Magazine Awards in just this past decade) as if he were nothing more than a paranoid crank.

It seems unusual, but it’s exactly what the staff of Foreign Policy has done to Seymour Hersh, following a lecture the venerated reporter gave at Georgetown University’s campus in Doha, Qatar. You may know Hersh as the dogged investigator who exposed the My Lai Massacre during Vietnam. You may know him as the staff writer for The New Yorker who published some of the earliest pieces on Abu Ghraib in May 2004. You might even know him as the man derided [2] and then vindicated [3] for claiming that Dick Cheney was running a secret assassination squad right out of the Vice President’s office. (In truth, the squad was and is a bipartisan affair, initiated under Clinton and still operative under Obama.)

Yet, given the Foreign Policy staff’s derisive commentary on Seymour’s January 17th talk [4], you would think he was some credulous rube midway through his first Dan Brown novel.

Hersh “delivered a rambling, conspiracy-laden diatribe here Monday,” Blake Hounshell reported on the magazine’s Passport [5]blog. His delusional fantasia: The existence of ties between the U.S. Military’s Joint Special Operations Command and a secretive Catholic order called the Knights of Malta. As Hounshell elaborates:

[Hersh] charged that U.S. foreign policy had been hijacked by a cabal of neoconservative “crusaders” in the former vice president’s office and now in the special operations community:

That’s the attitude,” he continued. “We’re gonna change mosques into cathedrals. That’s an attitude that pervades, I’m here to say, a large percentage of the Joint Special Operations Command.”

He then alleged that Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who headed JSOC before briefly becoming the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, and his successor, Vice Adm. William McRaven, as well as many within JSOC, “are all members of, or at least supporters of, Knights of Malta.”

Hersh may have been referring to the Sovereign Order of Malta, a Roman Catholic organization commited [sic] to “defence [sic] of the Faith and assistance to the poor and the suffering,” according to its website.

“They do see what they’re doing — and this is not an atypical attitude among some military — it’s a crusade, literally. They see themselves as the protectors of the Christians. They’re protecting them from the Muslims [as in] the 13th century. And this is their function.”

“They have little insignias, these coins they pass among each other, which are crusader coins,” he continued. “They have insignia that reflect the whole notion that this is a culture war. … Right now, there’s a tremendous, tremendous amount of anti-Muslim feeling in the military community.”

Hounshell, Foreign Policy’s web editor, has questioned Hersh’s reporting before [6], first speculating on the identity of a Hersh source, then on that hypothetical source’s credibility. However, this particular incident was unique in that it has yielded a small brushfire of attention, including three additional response pieces at foreignpolicy.com, reblogging by angered Catholic groups and a write-up [7] in the Washington Post.

The next day, the post was followed by an elaborately sarcastic “hot tip,” [8] written to Hersh open-letter style by Foreign Policy contributing editor and Washington Post special military correspondent Tom Ricks:

Hey Sy, a friend with good military connections tells me that U.S. special operations forces were covertly involved in the Knights of Malta’s stalwart defense of the island in 1565 against the Ottoman Turks. Lifting the siege was easy because the Turks turned tail when they saw those Ma Deuce .50 caliber machine guns.

This categorically high-handed snark came with the added force of Ricks’ being a Pulitzer Prize winner himself and the author of two blistering accounts of the Iraq war: Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq and its General Petraeus-centered sequel, The Gamble. He has been covering the military beat for the Post since 2000, performing double duty there and at Foreign Policy after it was acquired by The Washington Post Company in 2008.

That same day, FP associate editor Joshua Keating provided an ‘FP Explainer’ piece entitled “Who Are the Knights of Malta — and What Do They Want?” [9] dismissing Hersh’s claims with the conclusion that:

There’s not much evidence to suggest that the Knights of Malta are the secretive cabal of anti-Muslim fundamentalists that Hersh described. (For the record, when contacted by Foreign Policy, McChrystal said that he is not a member.) But they are certainly an anomalous presence in international politics and have provoked their share of conspiracy theories over the years.

Then, two days later, Hounshell produced a supplemental post [10] defending himself from a chorus [11] of [12] disgruntled [13] commenters [14] and Salon.com’s Glenn Greenwald [15]. “I thought it was self-evident that several points Hersh made were off-base and conspiratorial,” Hounshell began, “but perhaps it’s worth spelling things out for everyone.”

Let’s do the same.

Just how “off-base and conspiratorial” are Hersh’s claims? Who are the Knights of Malta, exactly, and what has been previously reported of their ‘special operations’ and government ties?

The Holy Ghosts
[16]

(from left to right) James Jesus Angleton, chief of the CIA's counter-intelligence staff from 1954-1975, and Reagan-era CIA Director William Casey were both members of the Knights of Malta.

Known formally as the “Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta,” the Knights of Malta is a Roman Catholic order founded in roughly 1048. Though the Knights operated as a military order during the First Crusade, today their approximately 12,500 members, 80,000 volunteers and 20,000 medical professionals work “in the field of medical and social care and humanitarian aid.” According to their website [17]:

The Order also runs hospitals, medical centres, day hospitals, nursing homes for the elderly and the disabled, and special centres for the terminally ill. In many countries the Order’s volunteer corps provide first aid, social services, emergency and humanitarian interventions.

Malteser International, the Order’s worldwide relief service, works in the front line in natural disasters and armed conflicts.

So far, so good. In fact, Foreign Policy’s description of the Knights cribs heavily from the Order’s own benevolent self-description. Josh Keating’s ‘explainer’ piece accounts for the litany of paranoid theories surrounding them as merely a by-product of the Knights’ “secretive proceedings, unique political status, and association with the Crusades.” Former CIA Directors William Casey and John McCone, Chrysler Chairman Lee Iacocca, and GOP fixture Pat Buchanan have all been “alleged members,” he claims, “though none have ever acknowledged membership.”

Keating’s use of ‘alleged’ here is curious, given that the membership of Reagan-era CIA Director Bill Casey in the Knights of Malta has been a fact widely reported in the press and never denied by Casey himself. Historian Joseph E. Persico, a former Republican speechwriter for Vice President Nelson Rockefeller and the co-author of Colin Powell’s autobiography, includes Casey’s membership in a routine list of charitable accomplishments, in his sympathetic biography Casey: from the OSS to the CIA (Penguin 1990). (Casey’s membership is asserted on page 105 of the paperback.)

Years earlier, Casey was listed publicly as a member in both Mother Jones (07/1983) and The Washington Post (12/27/1984). The implications of Casey’s membership are even alluded to in Bob Woodward’s Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA, 1981-1987, in which Casey’s deep Catholicism and the Catholic Church’s opposition to Nicaragua’s left-leaning Sandinista government are both recurring topics. In short: Casey’s membership has been undisputed for so long and across such a broad cross-section of the political spectrum that it raises serious questions about Foreign Policy’s standards for ‘facts’ and ‘allegations.’

(One might also reasonably ask Keating what difference it makes if an outed member of any secret society does not then publicly acknowledge membership. Isn’t that one of the major duties of being in a secret society?)

In addition to Casey and McCone, the Knights of Malta also counted among their members former CIA counterintelligence chief James Jesus Angleton—a fortuitous alliance as Angleton led the postwar intelligence efforts to subvert Italy’s 1948 elections. His success partnering with organized crime, right-leaning former fascists and the Vatican not only marginalized Italy’s homegrown Communist Party, it also encouraged Congress in the creation of the Central Intelligence Agency.
…with their unusual status as a recognized sovereign state without territory, the Knights of Malta enjoy full diplomatic rights in many countries—including the ability to bypass customs inspectors by secreting items across borders via ‘diplomatic pouch.’

Conservative luminary and National Review founder William F. Buckley—who spent two years after college as a CIA ‘political action specialist’ in Mexico City—was also a Knight, as was none other than William “Wild Bill” Donovan, the head of the CIA’s precursor organization, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). From 1970 to 1981, France’s intelligence agency was also headed by a member of the Order, Alexandre de Marenches. De Marenches would go on to be a co-founder of the Saudi-funded private intelligence group the Safari Club—one of George H. W. Bush’s many end-runs around congressional oversight of the American intelligence establishment and the locus of many of the worst features of the mammoth BCCI scandal.

So, while crackpot speculations about this particular Catholic order are legion, its ties to intelligence organizations in the U.S. and Western Europe are well-documented. It’s also perfectly understandable: with their unusual status as a recognized sovereign state without territory, the Knights of Malta enjoy full diplomatic rights in many countries—including the ability to bypass customs inspectors by secreting items across borders via “diplomatic pouch.” Sharing far right sympathies, the Roman Catholic Church and Cold War-era Western intelligence officials became natural allies, and the Knights of Malta became a natural conduit for their collaboration. With a lengthy, strategic partnership already forged in the name of anti-communism, a strengthening of this network in the name of the “War on Terror” ought to sound more predictable than paranoid to a student of U.S. foreign policy—particularly given the current pope’s record on Islam [18].

With “medical missions in more than 120 countries,” as Keating points out, a teeming network of government spooks operating under the diplomatic protection afforded the Knights of Malta would certainly have plenty of breathing room to operate unnoticed. And yet, Keating instead positions the Order’s charitable work as evidence that the Knights have left their old military function behind—pointedly ignoring years of charitable work tied to U.S. strategic goals and covert activities during the heady days of the Reagan/Bush era.

AmeriCares In Its Own Way

Beginning in 1982, The Knights of Malta began an intensely collaborative partnership with the international aid organization AmeriCares—a charity group unique in its selective disaster relief to countries friendly to both U.S. business investment and foreign policy objectives. Literally billing itself as “The humanitarian arm of corporate America,” AmeriCares was founded and headed until 2002 by Robert Macauley: a college roommate of George H. W. Bush, a paper mill millionaire and a self-described (then self-denied) agent in the CIA’s WWII-era precursor, the OSS. Macauley was also the first non-Catholic to receive the coveted Cross of the Commander of the Order of Malta.

A look at AmeriCares activity during this period gives the unavoidable impression that Macauley was running the charity, first and foremost, as the velvet glove to Reagan and Bush’s radical hardline approach to communism and indigenous left-wing political movements across the globe. In January 1990, AmeriCares and the German and Hungarian Knights of Malta supplied $1.4 million in supplies to pro-Western factions immediately following the collapse of Romania’s communist regime—proclaiming it “the first privately organized, large-scale relief effort following the revolution.” The partnership frequently worked with the infamous CIA front company Southern Air Transport. And during the Soviet-Afghanistan conflict in 1984, AmeriCares brazenly took sides, evacuating wounded members of the mujahideen to Walter Reed Army Hospital in Washington D.C. (One likely explanation: President Carter’s national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski—the man responsible for pairing the CIA with these future leaders of Al Qaeda—was an honorary chairman at AmeriCares.)

Nowhere was the alliance between the Knights of Malta, AmeriCares and U.S. Intelligence more pervasive and troubling than in Central America.

AmeriCares and the Order held off on relief to an economically crippled Panama in 1989 for six whole months, shuttling $2.5 million worth of medical supplies only after the conclusion of Bush Sr.’s lightning war against (former ally) Manuel Noriega.

AmeriCares and the Knights declined to participate with the Red Cross in a 1988 hurricane relief effort in left-leaning Nicaragua, only to change on a dime two years later, once the Sandinista government fell. (The group sent 23 tons of medical supplies just three days after the election.) Prior to regime change, AmeriCares also provided one-sided medical aid to the Sandinistas’ bête noire, the right-wing, CIA-backed contras, through a program controlled by the Iran-Contra scandal’s walking nerve center, Oliver North. They even attempted to fly in a planeload of newsprint to the anti-Sandinista newspaper La Prensa.

In Guatemala, AmeriCares and Knights of Malta joint activities were handled by the wealthy, right-wing paramilitary figure, Roberto Alejos Arzu, whose plantation had served as a training ground for the CIA’s bungled “Bay of Pigs” invasion of Cuba.

On occasion, AmeriCares and the Knights’ humanitarian work served not just as an adjunct to U.S. covert action but also as a welcome excuse for pharmaceutical companies to dump surplus product as charity, netting a high tax write-off. One massive AmeriCares vaccine shipment to the Philippines, where the Knights were supposed to handle distribution, was rejected by local governments as useless. AmeriCares’ sloppily labeled and overwhelming bulk medical shipments to Armenia were roundly criticized by a leading British medical journal, The Lancet.

Overall, the group spent the 1980s and 90s in uncomfortable collaboration with the rest of the humanitarian aid community. Many relief groups expressed frustration with AmeriCares’ refusal to coordinate activities, so as to avoid squandered duplicated efforts. Many also expressed private fears of angering its powerful, Bush-connected founder. Doug Siglin, public policy director of the humanitarian community’s umbrella group, InterAction, cautiously summed up their unusual behavior this way: “[AmeriCares’] approach is not the same as other groups.”

Seymour Hersh and the Silent Crusade

Seymour Hersh is in the middle of researching and writing a lengthy book on America’s wars and occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has something of a history of playing looser with his facts in speeches than in print—partially to preserve his scoops pre-publication—and his speech in Doha hewed close to that tradition. In addition to the Knights, for example, he also made claims regarding Opus Dei, another secretive far right Catholic group steeped in just as much rumor and conspiracy theory. However, Hersh is a five-time Polk winner and recipient of the 2004 George Orwell Award—a reporter with a record that is well-burnished and nearly sterling.

Given the late 20th Century history of the “Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta,” how strange would it really be to find members of the Order, in and out of the military, collaborating on a new silent crusade with their old Cold War allies?

It would certainly complement the Christian fundamentalist version of the war, as prosecuted by Erik Prince, the former CEO of the military’s most notorious civilian contractor Xe (formerly Blackwater). His views—as depicted in one affidavit from the court case against him [19]—certainly echo much of what Hersh ascribes to the JSOC and the Knights of Malta:

To that end, Mr. Prince intentionally deployed to Iraq certain men who shared his vision of Christian supremacy, knowing and wanting these men to take every available opportunity to murder Iraqis. Many of these men used call signs based on the Knights of the Templar, the warriors who fought the Crusades.

Mr. Prince operated his companies in a manner that encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life. For example, Mr. Prince’s executives would openly speak about going over to Iraq to “lay Hajiis out on cardboard.” Going to Iraq to shoot and kill Iraqis was viewed as a sport or game. Mr. Prince’s employees openly and consistently used racist and derogatory terms for Iraqis and other Arabs, such as “ragheads” or “hajiis.”

Hersh’s assertions would also add context to the curious case [20] of former U.S. deputy undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, Gen. William Boykin, who drew fire during his tenure for calling the war against Islamic extremism a struggle against “a spiritual enemy called Satan.”

(In defending his original review of Hersh’s speech, FP’s Blake Hounshell demotes both of these cases from ‘data’ to mere ‘anecdote.’ The devaluation would appear to be premature in the case of Erik Prince, whose court case is still pending—while related Xe cases are being mysteriously ignored [21] by the same Eastern District of Virginia task force convened to prosecute them. And, given that Boykin was operating near the heart of exactly the institution Hersh is accusing, trivializing his statements comes across as extremely optimistic, if not downright naive.)

Until Hersh’s book-length treatment of the subject is published, at least we can all agree with Foreign Policy’s Joshua Keating that the Knights of Malta have been “an anomalous presence in international politics and have provoked their share of conspiracy theories.”

This time around, they’ve practically goaded us into it.

Article printed from WhoWhatWhy: http://whowhatwhy.com

URL to article: http://whowhatwhy.com/2011/02/23/pulitzer-prize-winner-seymour-hersh-and-the-men-who-want-him-committed/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://whowhatwhy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Hersh_Malta_1.jpg

[2] derided: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/22/oreilly-if-cheney-had-an_n_177755.html

[3] vindicated: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-scahill/the-democrats-selective-a_b_233708.html

[4] talk: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/22/transcript_the_obamabush_foreign_policies_why_cant_america_change

[5] Passport : http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/01/18/seymour_hersh_unleashed

[6] before: http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2008/06/30/a_word_of_caution_about_seymour_hershs_latest

[7] a write-up: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/20/AR2011012005783.html

[8] “hot tip,”: http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/01/19/heres_a_hot_tip_for_seymour_hersh

[9] an ‘FP Explainer’ piece entitled “Who Are the Knights of Malta — and What Do They Want?”: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/19/who_are_the_knights_of_malta_and_what_do_they_want

[10] a supplemental post: http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/01/21/me_and_seymour_hersh

[11] chorus: http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/01/18/seymour_hersh_unleashed#comment-493421

[12] of: http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/01/18/seymour_hersh_unleashed#comment-493616

[13] disgruntled: http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/01/18/seymour_hersh_unleashed#comment-492766

[14] commenters: http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/01/18/seymour_hersh_unleashed#comment-492911

[15] Salon.com’s Glenn Greenwald: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/18/cheney/index.html

[16] Image: http://whowhatwhy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Hersh_Malta_2.jpg

[17] According to their website: http://www.orderofmalta.org/faq/26466/faq/?lang=en#5

[18] given the current pope’s record on Islam: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI_and_Islam

[19] as depicted in one affidavit from the court case against him: http://www.thenation.com/article/blackwater-founder-implicated-murder

[20] the curious case: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec03/boykin_10-21.html

[21] mysteriously ignored: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/01/04/33052.htm

Sunday, April 03, 2011

Nothing New: "intellectual prostitutes"

John Swinton, who worked at The New York Times and The New York Sun and in various writing gigs from the 1860s to the eve of the 20th century, reminds us that it’s always been about selling copies, that this business of news is just that. Swinton, on a night of drinking with his colleagues in 1880, was asked to make a toast to the “independent press.” He stood up and famously answered: “There is no such thing, at this date of the world’s history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.”