The Lalaland inhabited by the American Right, producing bizarre beliefs about things like climate change bewilders other countries, who don’t let rich people dictate to them what they should think. What they have to understand is that the United States is one big Company Town, where workers get shot down if they step away from the company line.
This is how George W. Bush and Dick Cheney got Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, suspected of involvement in the bombing of two US embassies in East Africa in 1998, off hundreds of murder charges: They had him tortured. Ghailani was convicted Wednesday of conspiracy to damage US government property, for which he could well face life imprisonment, but was acquitted of murder charges stemming from the deaths caused by the blowing up of the embassies. The US right wing is jumping up and down and denouncing Attorney General Eric Holder for trying Ghailani in a civilian court instead of in a military tribunal, and implying that he got off because civilian law is more lax than that of the tribunals would have been. For instance, Rep. Peter T. King (R-NY) thundered, “This tragic verdict demonstrates the absolute insanity of the Obama administration’s decision to try Al Qaeda terrorists in civilian courts.” King, defended Bush’s commitment to torturing people, saying “Bush deserves credit for what he did.” King should be aware that advocating war crimes itself was considered a crime at the Nuremberg trials. In fact, the government case against Ghailani was undermined precisely by Bush and Cheney and their foaming-at-the-mouth supporters on the Right, which increasingly deserves to be called simply American Fascism. The case was undermined by the use of torture. When Bush admitted in his memoirs to torturing people, he may as well have just grabbed the key from Ghailani’s prison guard and stuck it in the jail door and yelled for the Tanzanian to make a run for it. Ghailani was waterboarded, i.e. tortured, into revealing his relationship with Hussein Abebe, who in turn provided the most damaging testimony against Ghailani. As FDL perceptively wrote, it is possible that Abebe’s own testimony against Ghailani was itself coerced. On Oct. 5, Judge Lewis Kaplan [pdf] excluded Abebe’s testimony, on the grounds that it was a a fruit of a poisonous tree, i.e. was only available to the prosecution because Bush had had Ghailani tortured (and maybe had had Abebe tortured, as well!) That was why Ghailani could not be convicted of murder, as he from all accounts ought to have been. Had his connection to Abebe been discovered by ordinary questioning or by good police work, then the latter could have freely taken the witness stand. In fact, it seems to me very likely that Abebe would in fact have been discovered in other ways– from the record, e.g., of Ghailani’s cell phone calls, or even just from his own account of his activities. King’s and others’ assertion that a military tribunal could have gotten a conviction on the murder charges is simply incorrect, as Judge Kaplan himself pointed out (h/t FDL): ‘ It is very far from clear that Abebe’s testimony would be admissible if Ghailani were being tried by military commission, even without regard to the question whether the Fifth Amendment would invalidate any more forgiving provisions of the rules of evidence otherwise applicable in such a proceeding. Military commissions are governed by the Military Commissions Act, 10 USC 948a et seq. (the “MCA”). Evidence in such proceedings is governed by the Military Commission Rules of Evidence (“MCRE”). U.S. DEP’T OF DEFENSE, MANUAL FOR MILITARY COMMISSIONS (2010 ed.). MCA 948r(a) and MCRE 304 preclude or restrict the use of “statements obtained by torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment,” and evidence derived threrefrom, and could require exclusion of Abebe’s testimony. Even if they did not, the Constitution might do so, even in a military commission proceeding.’ The military tribunal still has to operate within the terms of the US Constitution, however much Bush and Cheney (and Peter King) may despise that document, and it is the constitution that would force any judge, military or civilian, to invalidate evidence obtained by torture. It isn’t the fault of American civil justice, still among the best and most upright in the world. It isn’t Obama’s fault, or Eric Holder’s fault. It is the fault of the profound betrayal of American law and values by vapid thugs who want to take us back to absolute monarchy, to bills of attainder, star chambers, divine right of kings, and drawing and quartering and breaking at the wheel. King and other members of Congress, who wish to make an end run around the constitution with their ‘military tribunals,’ are essentially violating the separation of powers, since the artificial tribunals operating beyond the bill of rights are a way for the legislative and executive branches to sidestep the judicial system so as to administer arbitrary ‘justice.’ This way of proceeding is essentially a bill of attainder: “Bills of attainder . . . are such special acts of the legislature, as inflict capital punishments upon persons supposed to be guilty of high offences, such as treason and felony, without any conviction in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings. If an act inflicts a milder degree of punishment than death, it is called a bill of pains and penalties. . . . In such cases, the legislature assumes judicial magistracy, pronouncing upon the guilt of the party without any of the common forms and guards of trial, and satisfying itself with proofs, when such proofs are within its reach, whether they are conformable to the rules of evidence, or not.” The actually existing constitution of the United States of American forbids bills of attainder (Article I, Section 9 ), as an abuse of the British Old Regime. If Tea Partiers had any integrity and actually stood for the values that their tricorner hats imply, they’d be denouncing arbitrary tribunals themselves. Terrorism, like any other social pathology, can best be fought with a rule of law, not by trampling on the very framework of our democratic system. We don’t have to become al-Qaeda to fight al-Qaeda. In fact, in America’s struggle to win over the Muslims of the world, adherence to our constitution is among our most effective weapons. Gallup found that: ‘ When asked what they admire most about the West, citizens of Muslim countries ranked technology first and liberty and democracy second. They expressed widespread admiration for the freedom of expression and assembly, rule of law, and government accountability they see in the West. ‘ Muslims already know all about military tribunals and torture and arbitrarily tossing people in jail. They are yearning for something better, which we, at least used to, have. Bush and the Bushies screwed up, and they are blaming it on the liberties enshrined in the constitution by men a thousand times their betters, for which generations of Americans have fought and died, and whose memory is being desecrated by the sad likes of George W. Bush, Richard Bruce Cheney, Peter King and the rest of our would-be Anglophone Francisco Francos.
(updated below - Update II - Update III - Update IV)
On Friday, Israeli security forces, Shin Bet, detained Norman Finkelstein when he tried to enter Israel, kept him in an airport holding cell for 24 hours, ordered him deported from the country, and then imposed a 10-year ban on his entry. Finkelstein, the son of a Holocaust survivor, is a Jewish-American author and academic who has frequently criticized the Israeli Government and provoked extreme animosity among right-wing factions in the U.S. He had flown to Israel 15 times previously without incident and was never charged with, let alone convicted of, any crime.
This morning, I interviewed Finkelstein regarding this episode and related issues (the audio for which is here). I also interviewed Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, whose animosity towards Finkelstein is intense and long-standing. Dershowitz, to his credit (and, given the below-described events, somewhat ironically) was quite critical of Israel's exclusion of Finkelstein. The full interview with Dershowitz can be heard here.
This morning, the Israeli daily newspaper, Haaretz, published an Editorial emphatically criticizing the government's exclusion of Finkelstein, rejecting the notion that Finkelstein posed any remote security threat and noting: "Considering his unusual and extremely critical views, one cannot avoid the suspicion that refusing to allow him to enter Israel was a punishment rather than a precaution." Haaretz further highlighted the danger of allowing the Government to suppress viewpoints it dislikes:
[T]he right of Israeli citizens to hear unusual views is one that should be fought for. It is not for the government to decide which views should be heard here and which ones should not.Beyond the obvious significance of the story itself (one which has been written about extensively in the foreign press, including Europe, but which is missing almost completely from the American media), this episode is part of a very disturbing trend whereby advocates of right-wing Israeli policies try to suppress viewpoints that deviate from their orthodoxies.The decision to ban Finkelstein hurts us more than it hurts him.
Finkelstein -- a Ph.D from Princeton and the author of numerous books -- was himself the subject of an extraordinary (and ultimately successful) campaign (with the enthusiastic leadership of "free speech advocate" Dershowitz, people like Marty Peretz and other neocons who dislike his views) to have him denied tenure by DePaul University, where he had taught for seven years. He was denied tenure even though the Political Science Department (by a 9-3 vote) and the Personnel Committee (unanimously) recommended him for tenure.
As The Chicago Tribune reported: "The American Association of University Professors had previously complained to the university that Finkelstein's summary discharge violated standards of academic freedom." Since then, no other university has been willing to risk the controversy that would be inevitably provoked if it hired Finkelstein, who has therefore been unemployed since leaving DePaul.
That campaign against Finkelstein was similar to the (also successful) one spearheaded by various American neoconservatives to block Yale University from extending a tenure position to University of Michigan Professor (and critic of Israeli policies) Juan Cole -- who stood accused (falsely) of harboring a "deep and abiding hatred of Israel"; that "if it were up to Mr. Cole, the country wouldn't exist at all"; and being "best known for disparaging the participation of prominent American Jews in government." Despite being approved for tenure by the Yale departments he was to join, Professor Cole's appointment was rejected by a Yale appointments committee in the wake of the neoconservative campaign against him. As Inside Higher Ed reported at the time, in an article entitled "Blackballed at Yale":
[NYU Professor of Middle East Studies Zachary] Lockman said that Cole is "one of the preeminent historians of the modern Middle East and he's been attacked on political grounds -- because he's critical of the Bush administration and Israel." Given Cole's reputation and the departmental backing for his appointment, Lockman said of the decision to reject Cole: "Universities seem to be willing to kowtow to pressure from outside interest groups" . . . .Over the past several years, the U.S. has itself refused entry to those espousing views on Israel disagreeable to neocons. In 2004, Tariq Ramadan, a prominent Muslim scholar from Switzerland who was to teach a course at the University of Notre Dame, was granted an entrance visa only to have it revoked by Homeland Security based on vague accusations that he posed a security threat. As The Guardian's Richard Silverstein noted, the visa revocation occurred after Ramadan was continuously attacked by neocons like Daniel Pipes with "false claims about Ramadan's sympathy for terrorism." Independent of Israel-related issues, there are numerous other cases of journalists, authors and others being refused entrance to the U.S. on the most dubious grounds that simply do not exist anywhere else in the free world."These vicious attacks on my character and my views were riddled with with wild inaccuracies," [Cole] said, adding that the criticism was "motivated by a desire to punish me for daring to stand up for Palestinian rights, criticize Israeli policy, criticize Bush administration policies and, in general being a liberal Democrat."
In fact, the problem of right-wing attacks on free speech when it comes to Israel is -- as Finkelstein himself in my interview with him noted -- far worse in the U.S. than it is in Israel. As the Haaretz Editorial reflects, Israel is a pluralistic society that tolerates a much broader range of debate over Israeli actions than is permissible in the U.S. Indeed, just yesterday, Marty Peretz lamented that Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt are lecturing this month at Hebrew University in Jerusalem on "The Israel Lobby." While suggestions of negotiations with Hamas is a taboo topic for American politicians, a majority of Israelis support that option. Views that are routinely castigated by neocons in the U.S. as "anti-Israeli" and even "anti-Semitic" are freely expressed in Israel, by Israelis, with regularity.
Still, Israel's 10-year exclusion of Finkelstein is disturbing and warrants real criticism. As Finkelstein noted in my interview with him, he was not intending to stay in Israel, but rather, to visit friends in the Occupied Territory. Thus, the issue extends beyond Israel's attempt to bar those with dissenting views from entering that country to Israel's attempt to deny Palestinians the ability to meet with those who are critical of Israel's occupation. Right-wing, Israel-centric factions in the U.S. have conclusively demonstrated that they oppose free debate and don't believe in free expression. It can't be good for Israel -- and, either way, it's certainly not justifiable -- for Israel to follow in their pernicious footsteps.
UPDATE: The interview with Finkelstein can be heard here. It's roughly 20 minutes. The interview with Dershowitz (roughly 6 minutes) can be heard here.
UPDATE II: The Jerusalem Post reports that Finkelstein's exclusion was, in fact, based on the government's dislike of his political views:
American political scientist and fierce critic of Israel, Prof. Norman Finkelstein, was denied entry to Israel and deported from the country early Saturday morning. Officials said that the decision to deport Finkelstein was connected to his anti-Zionist opinions and fierce public criticism of Israel around the world. . . .It's unclear what "anti-Zionist" in that context is supposed to mean, since Finkelstein has long advocated for a two-state solution based on Israel's 1967 borders -- the position that can, more or less, be described as an international consensus -- but what matters here is the acknowledgment that the exclusion was viewpoint-based. Some in comments had baselessly speculated that the exclusion was due to Finkelstein's having met with Hezbollah officials -- a fact which even the extremely anti-Hezbollah Dershowitz (as well as the Haaretz Editorial) agreed would not be a basis for exclusion, but clearly, not even Israeli government officials are invoking that pretext.Prof. Alan Dershowitz of Harvard was active in campaigning against Finkelstein. His most recent book, Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, is largely an attack on Dershowitz's The Case for Israel. In his book, Finkelstein argues that Israel uses the outcry over perceived anti-Semitism as a weapon to stifle criticism.
Mr. Brzezinski has been accused of being "anti-Israel" by some Jewish academics, writers and bloggers after criticising Israel for excessive use of force and unwillingness to compromise. . . .These sorts of debate-suppressive tactics -- aside from being inherently wrong -- never advance the cause on behalf of which they're invoked. Coincidentally, Brzezinksi has a superb Op-Ed in today's Washington Post, co-authored with the equally superb retired Gen. William Odom, on creating a sensible American policy towards Iran.Mr Brzezinski said "it's not unique to the Jewish community -- but there is a McCarthyite tendency among some people in the Jewish community", referring to the Republican senator who led the anti-Communist witch hunt in the 1950s.
"They operate not by arguing but by slandering, vilifying, demonising. They very promptly wheel out anti-Semitism. There is an element of paranoia in this inclination to view any serious attempt at a compromised peace as somehow directed against Israel."
At Open Left, Paul Rosenberg examines an analogous inequity: while even the mildest critics of Israel on the Left are routinely demonized by neocons as "anti-Israeli" or "anti-Semitic," truly extreme hatemongers on the Right -- such as John Hagee -- are not only tolerated but embraced. Thus, Joe Lieberman, who previously compared Hagee to "Moses" in the midst of bathing Hagee with lavish praise, still refuses to repudiate Hagee or cancel his scheduled appearance at a Hagee event even in the wake of Hagee's comments that Hitler and the Holocaust were "God's will" to drive Jews back to Israel. Few things are more destructive than those like Lieberman who transparently exploit "anti-Israel" and "anti-Semitism" accusations to silence debate and for their own political gain.
