Support Our Sponsors

RSS Feed Now Available!
WAWA Daily Blog
Our Mission
WAWA/WeAreWideAwake is my Public Service to America as a muckracker who has journeyed seven times to Israel Palestine since June 2005. WAWA is dedicated to confronting media and governments that shield the whole truth.

We who Are Wide Awake are compelled by the "fierce urgency of Now" [Rev MLK, Jr.] to raise awareness and promote the human dialogue about many of the crucial issues of our day: the state of our Union and in protection of democracy, what life is like under military occupation in Palestine, the Christian EXODUS from the Holy Land, and spirituality-from a Theologically Liberated Christian Anarchist POV.

Contact Eileen Fleming:

Click here to contact
Eileen Fleming:

Eileen Fleming on YouTube

CUFI Conference

John Hagee Zionists
John Hagee CUFI
conference in Miami
Photo courtesy of a.e.

The Walls of Berlin and Bil'in
Abir Aramin Dead at 10
WAWA Photo Gallery
Eileen Fleming - We Are Wide Awake
Click here to view the
WAWA photo gallery

Photos of Israel Palestine
courtesy of Meir Vanunu,
Copyright 2007-08.

Photos of the Siege
courtesy of Guss,
Copyright 2008.


Garth Hewitt - From The Brokern Heart Of Gaza
Garth Hewitt:
From the Broken Heart
Of Gaza

FACTS ABOUT THE WALL from friends in Bethlehem

Read the truth about the Wall and what is happening today in the Holy City of Bethlehem.


Eileen Fleming's Biography

"We're on a mission from God."
The Blues Brothers

"Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all...and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave...a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils."
George Washington's Farewell Address - 1796

"My aim is to agitate & disturb people. I'm not selling bread, I'm selling yeast."

"Imagine All the People Sharing All the World."
John Lennon

"If enough Christians followed the gospel, they could bring any state to its knees." 
Father Philip Francis Berrigan 

"You can stand me up at the gates of hell, but I won't back down."
Tom Petty

"If I can't dance, it's not my revolution."
Emma Goldman

"We have yet to begin to IMAGINE the power and potential of the Internet."
Charlie Rose, 2005

Only in Solidarity do "We have it in our power to begin the world again"
Tom Paine

"Never doubt that a few, thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world: Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." 
Margaret Mead

"You shall know the truth and the truth will set you free."
John 8:32


Photo of George shown here
and in web site banner
courtesy of Debbie Hill, 2000.

Click Here
Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that, among these, are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; and, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it. -July 4, 1776. The Declaration of Independence


Home arrow Blog arrow March 2008 arrow March 17, 2008

March 17, 2008
WAWA Blog St. Patrick's Day: I am wearing green, but my red hot Irish is flaming over Iraq, grieving for Dr. Sami, USA democracy and am warning American's to WAKE UP and see the 21st century Big Brother: The Industrial Military Media ‘Security’ Complex

Now that the Republicans have chosen the son of the man who was in charge of the rush job, white-wash known as The Court of Inquiry, and who has linked his political future to U.S. military success in Iraq IT IS WAY PAST TIME TO DEMAND HE-and all the candidates-and big boy media LISTEN to the survivors of the USS LIBERTY.

Johnny boy has now met with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki shortly prior to the the Iraqi leaders chat with Cheney, regarding ongoing negotiations over a long-term security agreement between the two countries to replace the U.N. mandate for foreign troops set to expire at the end of the year.

U.S. Military Personnel Sacrificed in Iraq: 3,987

30,000 others have been wounded, scarred and NO doubt ALL have been traumatized.

Number Of Iraqis Slaughtered: 1,185,800

“The cost of the war in Iraq in terms of lives and treasures has been tremendous…The American economy has already incurred $1.3 trillion dollars in cost-a sobering $16,500 per family of four. The strategic sinkhole in Iraq means that our priorities at home and around the world are not being met.”-Randy Beers, Pres. and Founder National Security Network on Feb. 28, 2008. [page 74, Washington Report on Middle East Afairs, April 2008 edition.

What we the people should fear is the monolithic 21st Century Big Brother, the Industrial Military Media ‘Security’ Complex and WAKE UP and listen to the call of our prophets to do something to light a fire under our leaders to SERVE Americans and NOT corporate interests or the apartheid ethnocracy of Israel:

“Any nation that year after year continues to raise the Defense budget while cutting social programs to the neediest is a nation approaching spiritual death.” - Rev. MLK.

From Jewish Peace News:

The following article may be considered a follow-up to the JPN communique of February 28 ("Covering (up) the Occupation"). That message included an article by Yonatan Mendel from the London Review of Books (since reprinted in CounterPunch) describing the inconsistency of the terminology used by the Israeli press. Israeli journalists have one set of terms to describe violence and military attacks initiated by Israel, Mendel showed, and an altogether different set of terms to describe acts of Palestinian violence.

Such an analysis is not limited to the Israeli context, as David Bromwich discusses in the following New York Review of Books article. He points out that political euphemism is used by the American press and US administration with disturbing frequency, particularly in the context of the Middle East. The pervasiveness of political euphemism should come as no surprise to those critical of current US policy (and reporting) in the Middle East, but what is remarkable is how historically persistent such usages have been. Paul Kramer, whose article on the uses of waterboarding in the Spanish-American war at the turn of the twentieth century should be required reading for all students of American imperialism
 <>, makes a similar point. Kramer points out that even at that time there was an active debate in the US about the morality and legality of using water torture (known then as ?the water cure") against Filipino nationalists.

The debate was finally squelched and the issue covered up by an ambivalent Theodore Roosevelt. In a similar vein, Bromwich's article, below, points out that waterboarding is simply torture by means of "drowning interrupted," and so the name by which the technique is known falls into the broader category of political euphemisms used to conceal and excuse state-sanctioned brutality.

Mendel, Kramer, and Bromwich's articles may be considered as part of the current debate about the mendacity of government rhetoric and the tendency of the press to further disseminate state propaganda in the guise of objective reporting. It's not a new issue -- Chomsky and Herman wrote about this in the late-'80s, providing an economic analysis, Pierre Bourdieu discussed it in the ?90s, and Gaye Tuchman and Edward Said, among others, wrote extensively on the subject even earlier; Slavoj Zizek has also written at length on this topic in response to the Gulf  War. Martin Jay, the eminent University of California historian, recently delivered a series of lectures on the topic of lying in politics; and although Jay suggests that certain kinds of lies are not necessarily bad in politics, even he warns that there can be a justifiably steep price to pay for lying in a democratic system. Yet it seems that, on the whole, we haven't come far over the years in addressing the problem of state-level mendacity and the mainstream press?s collusion with it.

A note of optimism, however: the Internet and the blogosphere, as chaotic and oversaturated and numbingly commercial as they have become, obviously have altered the dynamics of media representation.

While the democratic potential of this change seems increasingly uncertain, JPN editors remain sanguine that small and independent news clipping, commentary, and redistribution sources offer significant alternatives to the dominant representations that the corporate media purveys.
--Lincoln Shlensky


Volume 55, Number 5  April 3, 2008
Euphemism and American Violence
By David Bromwich

In Tacitus' Agricola, a Caledonian rebel named Calgacus, addressing "a close-packed multitude" preparing to fight, declares that Rome has overrun so much of the world that "there are no more nations beyond us; nothing is there but waves and rocks, and the Romans, more deadly still than these? for in them is an arrogance which no submission or good behavior can escape." Certain habits of speech, he adds, abet the ferocity and arrogance of the empire by infecting even the enemies of Rome with Roman self-deception:

A rich enemy excites their cupidity; a poor one, their lust for power.

East and West alike have failed to satisfy them.... To robbery, butchery, and rapine, they give the lying name of "government"; they create a desolation and call it peace.

The frightening thing about such acts of renaming or euphemism, Tacitus implies, is their power to efface the memory of actual cruelties. Behind the facade of a history falsified by language, the painful particulars of war are lost. Maybe the most disturbing implication of the famous sentence "They create a desolation and call it peace" is that apologists for violence, by means of euphemism, come to believe what they hear themselves say.

On July 21, 2006, the tenth day of the Lebanon war, Condoleezza Rice explained why the US government had not thrown its weight behind a cease-fire:

What we're seeing here, in a sense, is the growing-the birth pangs of a new Middle East, and whatever we do, we have to be certain that we're pushing forward to the new Middle East, not going back to the old one.

Very likely these words were improvised. "Growing pains" seems to have been Rice's initial thought; but as she went on, she dropped the "pains," turned them into "pangs," and brought back the violence with a hint of redemptive design: the pains were only birth pangs. The secretary of state was thinking still with the same metaphor when she spoke of "pushing," but a literal image of a woman in labor could have proved awkward, and she trailed off in a deliberate anticlimax: "pushing forward" means "not going back."
NYU Taminent Library / Academic Freedom Conference

Many people at the time remarked the incongruity of Rice's speech as applied to the devastation wrought by Israeli attacks in southern Leba-non and Beirut. Every bombed-out Lebanese home and mangled limb would be atoned for, the words seemed to be saying, just as a healthy infant vindicates the mother's labor pains. Looked at from a longer distance, the statement suggested a degree of mental dissociation. For the self-serving boast was also offered as a fatalistic consolation-and this by an official whose call for a cease-fire might well have stopped the war.
 "The birth pangs of a new Middle East" will probably outlive most other phrases of our time, because, as a kind of metaphysical "conceit," it accurately sketches the state of mind of the President and his advisers in 2006.

The phrase also marked a notable recent example of a turn of language one may as well call revolutionary euphemism. This was an invention of the later eighteenth century, but it was brought into standard usage in the twentieth?"You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs"-by Stalin's apologists for revolution and forced modernization in the 1930s. The French Revolutionist Jean-Marie Roland spoke of the mob violence of the attack on the Tuileries as agitation or effervescence, never as "massacre" or "murder"?improvising, as he went, a cleansing metaphor  oddly similar to Rice's "birth pangs."

It was natural, said Roland, "that victory should bring with it some excess. The sea, agitated by a violent storm, roars long after the tempest." The task of the revolutionary propagandist, at a temporary setback, is to show that his zeal is undiminished. This he must do with a minimum of egotism, and the surest imaginable protection is to invoke the impartial authority of natural processes.

If one extreme of euphemism comes from naturalizing the cruelties of power, the opposite extreme arises from a nerve-deadening understatement.

 George Orwell had the latter method in view when he wrote a memorable passage of "Politics and the English Language":  Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants
 driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them.

Orwell's insight was that the italicized phrases are colorless by design and not by accident. He saw a deliberate method in the imprecision of texture. The inventors of this idiom meant to suppress one kind of imagination, the kind that yields an image of things actually done or suffered; and they wanted to put in its place an imagination that trusts to the influence of larger powers behind the scenes. Totalitarianism depends on the creation of people who take satisfaction in such trust; and totalitarian minds are in part created (Orwell believed) by the ease and invisibility of euphemism.

Before launching their response to Islamic jihadists in September 2001, members of the administration of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney gave close consideration to the naming of that response.

The President has been reported by Bob Woodward and Robert Draper to have said to his staff that they should all view the September 11 attack as an "opportunity."[1] His sense of that word in this context is hard to interpret, but its general bearings are plain.

Imaginative leadership, the President was saying, must do far more than respond to the attack, or attend to the needs of self-preservation. Better to use the attack as an opportunity to "go massive," as Donald Rumsfeld noted on September 11. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

A similar sense of Bush's purpose has recently been recalled by Karl Rove. "History has a funny way of deciding things," Rove said to an audience at the University of Pennsylvania on February 20, 2008. "Sometimes history sends you things, and 9/11 ! came our way."

But so, all the more pressingly: how to name the massive and partly unrelated response to a catastrophe which was also an opportunity?

The name must admit the tremendousness of the task and imply its eventual solubility, but also discourage any close inquiry into the means employed. They wanted to call it a war; but what sort of war? The phrase they agreed on, the global war on terrorism, was at once simple-sounding and elusive, and it has served its purpose as nothing more definite could have done.

The "global war on terrorism" promotes a mood of comprehension in the absence of perceived particulars, and that is a mood in which euphemisms may comfortably take shelter. There is (many commentators have pointed out) something nonsensical in the idea of waging war on a technique or method, and terrorism was a method employed by many groups over many centuries before al-Qaeda, the Tamil Tigers, the IRA, the Irgun, to stick to recent times.

But the "war on crime" and "war on drugs" probably helped to render the initial absurdity of the name to some degree normal. This was an incidental weakness, in any case. The assurance and the unspecifying grandiosity of the global war on terrorism were the traits most desired in such a slogan.

Those qualities fitted well with a style of white-lipped eloquence that Bush's speechwriter Michael Gerson had begun to plot into his major speeches in late 2001. It made for a sort of continuous, excitable, canting threat, emitted as if unwillingly from a man of good will and short temper. Gerson, from his Christian evangelical beliefs and journalistic ability (he had worked for US News & World Report and ghostwritten the autobiography of Chuck Colson), worked up for the President a highly effective contemporary "grand style" that skated between hyperbole and evasion. The manner suggested a stark simplicity that was the end product of sophisticated analysis and a visionary impatience with compromise.

This was exactly the way President Bush, in his own thinking, turned his imaginative vices into virtues, and he intuitively grasped the richness of a phrase like "the soft bigotry of low expectations" or "history's unmarked grave of discarded lies"?resonant formulae which he approved and deployed, over the challenges of his staff. What did the phrases mean? As their creator knew, the mode of their nonmeaning was the point. Like "pacification" and "rectification of frontiers," these markers of unstated policy were floating metaphors with a low yield of fact.  But they left an image of decisiveness, with an insinuation of contempt for persons slower to pass from thought to action.

Euphemism has been the leading quality of American discussions of the war in Iraq. This was plain in the run-up to the war, with the talk of "regime change"?a phrase welcomed by reporters and politicians as if they had heard it all their lives. Regime change seemed to pass at a jump beyond the predictable either/or of "forced abdication" and "international war of aggression." Regime change also managed to imply, without saying, that governments do, as a matter of fact, often change by external demand without much trouble to anyone. The talk (before and just after the war) of "taking out" Saddam Hussein was equally new. It combined the reflex of the skilled gunman and the image of a surgical procedure so routine that it could be trusted not to jeopardize the life of the patient. It had its roots in gangland argot, where taking out means knocking off, but its reception was none the worse for that.

Are Americans more susceptible to such devices than other people are?

Democracy exists in continuous complicity with euphemism. There are so many things (the staring facts of inequality, for example) about which we feel it is right not to want to speak gratingly. One result is a habit of circumlocution that is at once adaptable and self-deceptive. "Their own approbation of their own acts," wrote Edmund Burke of the people in a democracy, "has to them the appearance of a public judgment in their favor." Since the people are not always right but are by definition always in the majority, their self-approbation, Burke added, tends to make them shameless and therefore fearless. The stratagems of a leader in a democracy include giving the people a name for everything, but doing so in a way that maintains their own approbation of their own acts.

Thus a war the people trust their government to wage, over which we have no control, but about which we would prefer to think happy thoughts, gives the widest possible scope to the exertions of euphemism.

There has sprung up, over the past five years, a euphemistic contract between the executive branch and many journalists. "A short, sharp war," as Tony Blair was sure it would be, has become one of the longest of American wars; but the warmakers have blunted that recognition by breaking down the war into stages: the fall of Baghdad; the Coalition Provisional Authority; the insurgency; the election of the Assembly; the sectarian war. In this way the character of the war as a single failed attempt has eluded discovery; it has come to seem, instead, a  many-featured entity, difficult to describe and impossible to judge. And to assist the impression of obscurity, two things are consistently pressed out of view: the killing of Iraqi civilians by American soldiers and the destruction of Iraqi cities by American bombs and artillery.

Slight uptick in violence is a coinage new to the war in Iraq, and useful for obvious reasons. It suggests a remote perspective in which fifty or a hundred deaths, from three or four suicide bombings in a day, hardly cause a jump in the needle that measures such things. The phrase has a laconic sound, in a manner popularly associated with men who are used to violence and keep a cool head. Indeed, it was generals at briefings?Kimmitt, Hertling, and Petraeus?who gave currency to a phrase that implies realism and the possession of strong personal shock absorbers.

A far more consequential euphemism, in the conduct of the Iraq war- and a usage adopted without demur until recently, by journalists, lawmakers, and army officers?speaks of mercenary soldiers as contractors or security (the last now a singular-plural like the basketball teams called Magic and Jazz).

The Blackwater killings in Baghdad's Nissour Square on September 16, 2007, brought this euphemism, and the extraordinary innovation it hides, suddenly to public view. Yet the armed Blackwater guards who did the shooting, though now less often described as mere "contractors," are referred to as employees-a neutral designation that repels further attention. The point about mercenaries is that you employ them when your army is inadequate to the job assigned. This has been the case from the start in Iraq. But the fact that the mercenaries have been continuously augmented until they now outnumber American troops suggests a truth about the war that falls open to inspection only when we use the accurate word.

 It was always known to the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Defense that the conventional forces they deployed were smaller than would be required to maintain order in
 Iraq. That is why they hired the extracurricular forces.

Reflect on the prevalence of the mercenaries and the falsifying descriptions offered of their work, and you are made to wonder how much the architects of the war actually wanted a state of order in Iraq. Was this as important to them as, say, the assurance that "contracting" of all kinds in Iraq would become a major part of the American economy following the invasion? We now know that the separate bookkeeping and accountability devised for Blackwater, DynCorp, Triple Canopy, and similar outfits was part of a careful displacement of oversight from Congress to the vice-president and the stewards of his policies in various departments and agencies. To have much of the work of this war parceled out to private companies, who are unaccountable to army rules or military justice, meant, among its other advantages, that the cost of the war could be concealed beyond all detection. What is a contractor? Someone contracted to do a job by the proper authority. Who that hears the word "contractor" has ever asked what the contract is for?

There was a brief contest over surge-so ordinary yet so odd a word.

The rival term emphasized by critics of the war was "escalation": a word that owes its grim connotations to Vietnam.

The architects of the surge- Frederick Kagan and Retired General Jack Keane-fought hard to stop the mass media from switching to escalation. Their wishes were granted almost without exception, and to clinch the optimistic consensus, The New York Times on July 30, 2007, published an extraordinary Op-Ed by Kenneth Pollack and Michael O'Hanlon praising the progress of the surge.

The authors, supporters of the war who were permitted falsely to describe themselves as skeptics, wrote, as they confessed, after an eight-day army-guided tour, from which they had neither the enterprise nor the resources to step out and seek information on their own.

But it now seems likely that, with the help of the surge, the word as much as the thing, 2008 will end with as many American troops in Iraq as 2006. Meanwhile, as the mass media approved of the surge, they lost interest in Iraq, and that was the aim.

The strategists of the surge may have taken some pleasure in putting across a word that sounds like a breakfast drink but that insiders at the American Enterprise Institute, the Brookings Institution, and the Pentagon would recognize as shorthand for counterinsurgency.

When Seymour Hersh broke the story of Abu Ghraib, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was keen on excluding the word torture from all discussions of the coercive interrogations and planned humiliations at the prison. His chosen word was abuse: a word that has been devalued through its bureaucratization in therapies against spousal abuse, child abuse, and so on. "Torture," by comparison, still sets teeth on edge, and the word had been avoided for a long time.

Yet there were many, and not only in the inner circle of the vice-president, in the panic months after September 2001 who eagerly approved the breaking of old restrictions in the global war on terrorism. Alfred McCoy in A Question of Torture recalls that in late 2001 and early 2002 "a growing public consensus emerged in favor of torture."[2] And lawmakers were not to be outdone by legal theorists; Representative Jane Harman said, "I'm OK with it not being pretty."

What did the new tolerance encompass?

"Interrogation in depth" was one way of putting it; "professional interrogation techniques" were spoken of (perhaps with a view to the professionalism of the contractors). With the apparent acceptance of torture, the inversions of euphemism began to be extended to grammar as well as diction. Thus Alan Dershowitz argued in January 2002 for "torture warrants," to be issued by judges, and later spoke of the legitimation of torture as "bringing it within the law" (where, he implied! the torturer, the tortured, and the law would all be more secure). By bringing torture within the law, what Dershowitz meant was breaking the law out of itself to accommodate torture.

This argument was always about two things: the truth of words and the reality of violence. The statements to House and Senate committees, in late January and early February 2008, by Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell oddly converged on the following set of propositions. A method of interrogation known as "waterboarding" would feel like torture if it was done to them (Mukasey and McConnell offered different but parallel versions of the same personal formula, pretty clearly in coordination). The method had been used by American interrogators after September 11, 2001, they said, but it was not in use at present. Whether it constituted torture was a matter under investigation?an investigation so serious that no result should be expected soon? but authorization of the practice was within the powers of the President, and he reserved the right to command interrogators to waterboard suspects again if he thought it useful. The attorney general added his assurance that, in the event that the practice was resumed, he would notify appropriate members of Congress, even though Congress had no legal authority to restrain the President.

It would be hard to find a precedent for the sophistical juggle of these explanations. The secret in plain view was not a judgment about present or future policy, but an imposed acceptance of something past. President Bush, in 2002 and later, sought and obtained legal justifications for ordering the torture of terrorism suspects, and it is known that American interrogators used methods on some suspects that constitute torture under international law. If these acts had been admitted by the attorney general to meet the definition of torture, those who conducted the interrogations and those who ordered them, including the President, would be liable to prosecution for war crimes.

Because the legacy of the Nuremberg Trials remains vivid today, the very idea of a war crime has been treated as a thing worth steering clear of, no matter what the cost in overstretched ingenuity. Thought of a war crime does not lend itself to euphemistic reduction.

Yet "waterboarding" itself is a euphemism for a torture that the Jap-anese in World War II, the French in Indochina, and the Khmer Rouge, who learned it from the French, knew simply as the drowning torture. Our American explanations have been as misleading as the word. The process is not "simulated drowning" but actual drowning that is interrupted.

 Clarifications such as these, in the coverage of the debate, did not] emerge from news reports on the Mukasey and McConnell testimony; they had to be found in the rival testimony, either in public discussions or before Congress, of opponents like Lieutenant Commander Charles D. Swift (the JAG Corps defense counsel who was denied promotion after his public criticism of the Guant?namo tribunals) and Malcolm W. Nance (a retired instructor at the US Navy SERE school).

The contrast between the startling testimony of men like these and the speculative defense of waterboarding offered by semiofficial advocates such as David B. Rivkin, the Reagan Justice  Department lawyer and journalist, has been among the most disquieting revelations of these years. A group of men who think what they want to think and pay little attention to evidence have been running things; and they are guided not by experience but by words that were constructed for the purpose of deception.

Americans born between the 1930s and the 1950s have a much harder time getting over the shock of learning that our country practices torture than do Americans born in the 1970s or 1980s.

The memory of the Gestapo and the GPU, the depiction of torture in a film like Open City, are not apt to press on younger minds. But the different responses are also a consequence of the different imaginings to which people may fall prey. Many who fear that their children might be killed by a terrorist bomb cannot imagine anyone they know ever suffering injustice at the hands of the national security state.

This complacency suggests a new innocence?the correlative in moral psychology of euphemism in the realm of language. And if you take stock of how little general discussion there has been of the advisability of pursuing the global war on terrorism, you realize that this country has scarcely begun to take stock of the United States as an ambiguous actor on the world stage.

Those who said, in the weeks just after the September 11 attacks, that the motives of the terrorists might be traced back to some US policies in the Middle East were understandably felt to
 have spoken unseasonably.

The surprising thing is that six and a half years later, when a politic reticence is no longer the sole order of the day, discussion of such matters is still confined to academic studies like Chalmers Johnson's Blowback and Robert A. Pape's Dying to Win,[3] and has barely begun to register in The New York Times, in The Washington Post, or on CNN or MSNBC. Ask an American what the United States may have to do with much of the world's hostility toward us and you will find educated people saying things like "They hate the West and resent modernity," or "They hate the fact that we're so free," or "They hate us because this is a country where a man and a woman can look at each other across a table with eyes of love."

Indeed, the single greatest propaganda victory of the Bush administration may be the belief shared by most Americans that the rise of radical Islam?so-called Islamofascism has nothing to do with any previous actions by the United States.

Nothing can excuse acts of terrorism, which are aimed at civilians, or those acts of state terror in which planned civilian deaths are advertised as "collateral damage." Yet the uniformity of the presentation by the mass media after 2001, to the effect that the United States now faced threats arising from a fanaticism with religious roots unconnected to anything America had done or could do, betrayed a stupefying abdication of judgment.

The protective silence regarding the 725 American bases worldwide, and the emotions with which these are regarded by the people who live in their shadow, cover up a clue in the fact that fifteen of the nineteen hijackers on September 11 were Saudis. The presence of thousands of American troops on Arabian soil was hotly resented. To gloss over or ignore such facts only obstructs an intelligent discussion of the reaction likely to follow from any extended American occupation of the Middle East.

"Baghdad is calmer now; the surge is working." The temporary partial peace is an effect of accomplished desolation, a state of things in which the Shiite "cleansing" of the city has achieved the dignity of the status quo, and been ratified by the walls and checkpoints of General Petraeus. "The surge is working" is a fiction that blends several facts indistinguishably. For example: that Iraq is a land of militias and (as Nir Rosen has put it) the US Army is the largest militia; that in 2007 we paid 80,000 "Sunni extremists" to switch sides and then call themselves The Awakening.

Americans have suggested that the members of this militia make up neighborhood watch groups, and have assigned them euphemistic cover-names such as Concerned Local Citizens and Critical Infrastructure Security. In fact, many of them are "increasingly frustrated with the American military," according to Sudarsan Raghavan and Amit R. Paley in a Washington Post story that ran on February 28.

"If a Power coerces once," wrote H.N. Brailsford in his great study of imperialism, The War of Steel and Gold, "it may dictate for years afterwards without requiring to repeat the lesson." This was the design of the American "shock and awe" in Iraq.

Looking back on the invasion, one is impressed that so clear-cut a strategy could have evaded challenge under the casual drapery of "democracy." But say a thing often enough, so as to subdue the anxiety of a people and flatter their pride, and, unless they have come to know better with their own eyes and their own hands, they will accept the illusion.

"History begins today" was a saying in the Bush White House on September 12, 2001?repeated with menace by Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage to the director of Pakistani intelligence Mahmoud Ahmad a statement that on its face exhibits a totalitarian presumption. Yet nothing so much as language supplies our memory of things that came before today; and, to an astounding degree, the Bush and Cheney administration has succeeded in persuading the most powerful and (at one time) the best-informed country in the world that history began on September 12, 2001. The effect has been to tranquilize our self-doubts and externalize all the evils we dare to think of. In this sense, the changes of usage and the corruptions of sense that have followed the global war on terrorism are inseparable from the destructive acts of that war.

March 5, 2008


[1] Bob Woodward, Bush at War (Simon and Schuster, 2002), p. 32; Robert Draper, Dead Certain: The Presidency of George W. Bush (Free Press, 2007), p. 166.

[2] Alfred W. McCoy, A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation from the Cold War to the War on Terror (Metropolitan, 2006).

[3] Chalmers Johnson, Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire (Metropolitan, 2000); Robert A. Pape, Dying to Win: The
 Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism (Random House, 2005). Dying to Win was reviewed in these pages by Christian Caryl, September 22, 2005.

Jewish Peace News editors:
Joel Beinin
Racheli Gai
Rela Mazali
Sarah Anne Minkin
Judith Norman
Lincoln Shlensky
Alistair Welchman

Jewish Peace News sends its news clippings only to subscribers. To subscribe, go to

Thanks to Enrique for fowarding:

Do They Want to Kill Sami Al-Arian?

 (Ramsey Clark)

AMA and Defense Committee Will Hold Public Event on June 15th, 2008 In Support of Sami Al-Arian,

Ramsey Clark will be The Key Note Speaker

Former US Attorney General, an American Hero, Champion of Human Rights and world renowned Constitutional Attorney Mr. Ramsey Clark expressed his great concern about the well beings of Professor Sami Al-Arian, a political prisoner still in US Jail even after his acquittal from all the charges and a Plea bargain where as he agreed to be deported from USA. The US government is still holding him using legal procedural tactics and methods to find the ways to convict him of guilty of court contempt at minimum. After being on Hunger strike, Sami Al-Arian has not taken any food or water for the last eleven days. He was moved to BOP Hospital in Butner, North Carolina. Mr. Ramsey Clark deplored that the authorities still had not put intervenes on Professor Al-Arian, questioning, do they (Bush –Cheney Government) want to kill him. In a phone call yesterday, Mr. Ramsey Clark told that Sami's Attorney will try to meet him today Sunday at best.


Mr. Ramsey Clark sent his prayers and best wishes for Professor. Sami Al-Arian and agreed to be a key note speaker at an event organized by American Muslim Alliance and the People Supporters, Defense Committee for Sami Al-Arian. This event will highlight the plight of Sami Al-Arian; will take place on Sunday June 15th, 2008 in Bay Area California. The people of conscious of the world are urged for moral and monetary support for the defense of Al-Arian.


The (not so) Strange Case of U.S.A. v. Dr. Sami al Arian

Professor of Constitutional Criminal Law, Wm. Mitchell College of Law, St. Paul, MN 55105.  Past-President, National Lawyers Guild, President, Defense Lawyers Assn at the UN Tribunal for Rwanda, and appellate counsel for Dr. Sami al Arian before the 4th Circuit and the United States Supreme Court.


St. Paul, MN, 2/9/08 -- In December 2005, after 6 months of trial and some 100 prosecution witnesses, a Tampa jury completely rejected nearly 200 "terrorism- charges" against Dr. Sami al Arian, the well-known Palestinian activist, and respected academic, and three co-defendants.


Not one defendant was found guilty of any offense, Dr. al Arian was acquitted of most serious charges, and the jury "hung" 10-2 for acquittal on the rest.


Nearly 2 years before the jury verdict, John Ashcroft had trumpeted Dr. al Arian's arrest (with pre-arranged TV coverage, of course) in a hastily-organized Moscow press conference. Ashcroft claimed "the most dangerous financier of Palestinian Islamic Jihad in the Western Hemisphere" had been seized by a SWAT team.…at his Tampa home, surrounded by his shocked family.


A phone call to his lawyer might have been easier, but the propaganda value would have dropped significantly.  By the time the case got to trial, these wild claims were missing from the indictment. And, when the Tampa jury of ordinary Americans heard all of the prosecution's evidence, they agreed with Dr. al Arian's defense lawyers, Linda Moreno and William Moffet, that no crime had been committed at all.


Despite inflammatory videos of violence in Israel, heart-wrenching testimony from victims of suicide bombing and testimony of Israeli secret agents, who were actually behind Dr. al Arian's prosecution all along, the jury agreed that everything Dr. al Arian had been accused of doing was protected "freedom of speech," guaranteed by the 1 st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.


It was a great day for the U.S. Constitution, and the wisdom of ordinary Americans. In an article entitled, When Terrorism Charges Just Won't Stick," TIME Magazine reported Dr. al Arian's acquittal as "the biggest defeat for the Bush Administration's 'War on Terrorism' (and Civil Liberties) to date"…. and so it was.


But today, more than two years after his acquittal, Dr. al Arian still sits in prison, and he could be there for a long, long time.


How could this be?  Even Justice Scalia, one of the five Justices who anointed Mr. Bush as President, recently wrote in a case related to Dr. al Arian's Supreme Court appeal, that the 6th amendment  right to a jury was a "bulwark" against government abuses, that it needs to be defended and expanded.  Apparently even Justice Scalia would agree that, when it comes to the al Arian case, something is not working in the American legal system!


The answer is simple on the surface…. some judges don't seem understand basic contract law!  Here is a test any first-year student could pass, that tells all you need to know to figure out why Dr. Sami al Arian is still in prison…..more than 2 years after his acquittal.


PARTY 1:  "Here is a written contract I have prepared for you with 6 clauses….you will note that clause4  requires you must deliver widgets."


PARTY 2:  "I will never sign that contract with the widget clause, I have no widgets and will never have anything to do with widgets…you can shove your "widgets" up your ass. "


PARTY 1: "OK, OK….I have entirely removed the "widgets clause," the remaining 5 clauses are unchanged and there is no mention of "widgets", as you insisted.  Will you sign this new version of the contract now, without the "widgets clause?"


PARTY 2:  "The rest of the contract is OK, as long as we both      understand             " no widgets"…. here is my signature."


PARTY 1:  "Now that you have signed the new contract, without the "widgets clause," as we agreed, I have one thing to say:

….if you don't deliver the widgets, I'll have you arrested and jailed!"


Here's the exam: (a) Must "Party 2" deliver  widgets to "Party 1"?  (b) May "Party 1" imprison "Party 2" for failing to deliver the widgets?   Discuss.


If you answered "NO… of course not" because…(a) the obligation to deliver widgets removed from the contract by mutual assent; (b) there was no "meeting of minds" on the "widgets clause"; and both parties understood the contract did not include "widegets"; (c) the demand for widgets verges on "fraud in the inducement" to get Party 2 to sign the contract in the first place… would probably do pretty well.


But if you made the same argument before the 11th Cir. Court of Appeals, you would LOSE….IF you were representing Dr. al Arian.  


Because that is exactly what a 3-judge panel of that Circuit ruled on January 26, 2008 in the appeal of the terms of the written contract that Dr. al Arian entered into with the Bush Administration, as part of the agreement for his release in May 2006.


The ruling in the al Arian appeal only makes sense when you know that "Party 1" is the Bush Administration, and is only one of many examples of the Cheney/Bush "War on Terrorism (the timeless tactic of politically motivated violence)" that is being cynically used to distort fundamental principles of the American legal system every day, for crass political reasons, and particularly in cases involving Palestinian activists, like Dr. al Arian.  Here's how it happened:


After the December 2005 jury verdict, the Tampa Assistant United States Attornies who had tried the case knew that conviction on a retrial of the "hung counts" was unlikely.  After suffering their "biggest loss to date" according to TIME, Bush Administration needed a "face-saving" way out.  So, like members of Marlon Brando's "family" in "The Godfather," the "Bush Gang" made Dr. al Arian "an offer he couldn't refuse"…..they offered to release him and help him leave the country immediately in May 2006!


If  only he would agree he did something they could call a "crime."


The Tampa AUSA admits promising to: (a) drop prosecution of all "hung" counts; (b) release Dr. al Arian almost immediately for time-served; (c) assist his immediate deportation from the U.S.


For his part, Dr. al Arian was asked to admit that he committed two legal, non-violent acts (which were not in dispute), which the Bush Gang was willing to call a "time-served conspiracy count," to get out of a botched case that had become an international embarrassment. 


By any measure it was a "good deal," particularly when Dr. al Arian  had been facing life in prison, or even the death penalty, since Ashcroft's Moscow 2003 press extravaganza, and after having been in Super-Max, solitary confinement for two years… before trial. 


But he did refuse…and he continued to refuse… because the standard Tampa plea agreement had a "grand jury cooperation clause," which required him to provide information to the prosecution, and to testify before a grand jury.  Like our hypothetical "Party 2", when Dr. al Arian saw the "cooperation clause" his answer was, "hell no!"


In the face of his steely resolve, the Bush Gang panicked and did what any criminal enterprise would do…they lied to him to get his agreement…and the courts have been aiding and abetting the "fraud in the inducement" ever since.


According to both the defence lawyers' sworn affidavits and on-the-record admissions of a Tampa Assistant U.S. Attorney the "standard cooperation clause" was removed to induce Dr. al Arian to sign the plea agreement (which is a "contract" in all federal circuits).  Another Tampa AUSA stated in court before the contract was signed, that the contract's terms specifically covered ongoing grand jury investigations in Alexandria Va. and that, the all terms of the "contract" had been approved at the highest levels of Justice Department headquarters in  Washington, D.C..…including removal of the "cooperation clause."


Two weeks later, at the public sentencing hearing on May 1, 2006, the Tampa AUSA dropped all remaining charges and the Judge signed Order for immediate deportation, showing no one thought Dr. al Arian was a security threat. For a few minutes on the morning of May 1, 2006, it seemed the al Arian family's nightmare was only days away from ending, based on the contract of the Bush Gang. 


 But, the "contract" was just another of the many lies the Bush Administration has told the American people.  Once the Judge, and the Bush Gang had Dr. al Arian's signature on the dotted line, the fix was in; and, the manipulation of the American legal system was off and running….again.


First, Tampa Judge Moody rejected "immediate release" and added a year by imposing the constitutional 5-year maximum, for the minor, first offense conjured up to get Dr. al Arian to "sign the contract."  To justify himself, on. Judge Moody publicly denounced and defamed Dr. al Arian as having committed all of the offenses of which he had been acquitted. In essence, the Judge publicly "convicted" Dr. al Arian, despite the jury acquittal, and sentenced him to an extra year in prison. (This use of "acquitted conduct" was appealed to the Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case in April 2007 and Justice Scalia's comments were from a related case, decided at the same time.)  


Then, only a week later, Assistant United States Attorney Gordon Kromberg filed a writ to bring Dr. al Arian before the very Alexandria, Virginai grand jury that the Tampa AUSA said had been included in the "no-cooperation" contract with the Bush Gang. Despite 4th Circuit appeals, Dr. al Arian was jailed for grand jury contempt detention for nearly a year, while he continues to insist that theBush Gang keep its bargain.  The detention was finally lifted in December 2007, when it became clear that Dr. al Arian would not budge.   But, it extended is release date on the already unconstitutional criminal sentence until April, 2008, nearly  two years after the Bush Gang promised promised to released him, to trick him into accepting their "deal." 


On January 26, the Appeals Court held that "Party 2" in our hypo  (Dr. al Arian)  is bound by a  contract clause that "Party 1" (the Tampa AUSA) agrees was removed because of a bargained-for exchange, in a ruling that would be impossible to explain to a first year Contracts class. The "contract issue" is now the subject of a Petition for Rehearing, filed by George Washington Law Professor Jon Turley, and the issue will be in litigation until long after Dr. al Arian's April release date.


If nothing changes, Dr. al Arian's long nightmare, and that of his wife and children (all U.S. citizens) which has been documented in an international-award winning film: the U.S.A. v. Dr. Sami al Arian…may come to an end.


But, the question is: what will AUSA Kromberg do now?


Kromberg has called other Palestinians, acquitted of "terrorism- charges,"  before his grand jury and he indicted them for perjury when they did answer his questions.  Kromberg recently sent an acquitted Palestinian defendant to prison for nearly 11 years, for "perjury" with a "terrorism" enhancement. Other acquitted Palestinian activists have been imprisoned for "obstruction," if they did not testify, like Dr. al Arian.


But, here's were the "no-cooperation clause" contract-issue comes in again again.  None of the previous cases have involved an acquitted defendant who has a written contract with the Bushi Gang. Until appeals are exhausted, Dr. al Arian must continue to insist on his basic contracts rights, or risk waiving them. 


 So, the real question for the Bush Gang is whether AUSA Kromberg will be permitted by his "capo," Atty. Gen. Mukasy, to prosecute an otherwise innocent person, for insisting on holding Gang to the terms of the contract approved by the recently deposed capo, Alberto Gonzales?  We shall see.


Kromberg has openly declared that his real mission is "preventing the Islamicization of the American Legal System."  And, has openly expressed opined that "Palestinians kill Jews during Ramadan" to justify rejecting Dr. al Arian's request for minor accommodation for Musliim religious observances…."  Exactly the kinds of statements that would have cost him his job, had he been referring to Catholics…or Kenyans.  Kromberg's comments are reported in affidavits in the court record, and many more reported on the Web.


The danger is that, despite the removal of the "widget clause," Dr. al Arian may be indicted by a runaway federal prosecutor for failing to "deliver the widgets"…. that he had specifically rejected in the "contract" that Godfather Bush's Gang induced him to sign, to save themselves from even greater embarrassment, of their own creation. 


Now…the task is to prevent AUSA Kromberg from using his waning prosecutorial power in the dying days of the Bush fiasco to prevent Dr. al Arian from getting the "benefit of the bargain" into which he entered nearly two years ago…to be released immediately, to resume a life with his family in a country where the "Rule of Law" may still have some meaning.


It all depends on whether Attorney Gen. Mukasy and the courts remember their first year Contracts casebook, and whether the Congress will continue to let this travesty of the law, continue.


Letters to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees demanding oversight, and to Mukasey to demand that the "Justice" Department keep its bargain, certainly could do no harm.  Feel free to attach this essay.



Visitors since 07.22.05
Visitors: 35152524

"HOPE has two children.The first is ANGER at the way things are. The second is COURAGE to DO SOMETHING about it."-St. Augustine

 "He who is not angry when there is just cause for anger is immoral. Why? Because anger looks to the good of justice. And if you can live amid injustice without anger, you are immoral as well as unjust." - Aquinas

BEYOND NUCLEAR: Mordechai Vanunu's Freedom of Speech Trial

Published 10/30/10

Order Books at

Vanunu's Message to

Hillary Clinton re:
The Apartheid Wall

Order My Books
"Memoirs of a Nice
Girl's Life in
Occupied Territory"

"Keep Hope Alive"
To order either book
click here.
Login Form
Become a registered member of this site to view archived articles and become a guest correspondent.



Remember me
Forgotten your password?
News Archive
Click here to view past articles of interest

View 30 Minutes with Vanunu and his Video Message to USA Christians
Articles Can Be Read Under VANUNU ARCHIVES  


Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.


The Paradoxical Commandments
by Dr. Kent M. Keith

People are illogical, unreasonable, and self-centered.
Love them anyway.

If you do good, people will accuse you of selfish ulterior motives.
Do good anyway.

If you are successful, you win false friends and true enemies.
Succeed anyway.

The good you do today will be forgotten tomorrow.
Do good anyway.

Honesty and frankness make you vulnerable.
Be honest and frank anyway.

The biggest men and women with the biggest ideas can be shot down by the smallest men and women with the smallest minds.
Think big anyway.

People favor underdogs but follow only top dogs.
Fight for a few underdogs anyway.

What you spend years building may be destroyed overnight.
Build anyway.

People really need help but may attack you if you do help them.
Help people anyway.

Give the world the best you have and you'll get kicked in the teeth.
Give the world the best you have anyway.

© 1968, 2001 Kent M. Keith

" In the final analysis, it is between you and God.  It was never between you and them anyway."-Mother Teresa

“You cannot talk like sane men around a peace table while the atomic bomb itself is ticking beneath it. Do not treat the atomic bomb as a weapon of offense; do not treat it as an instrument of the police. Treat the bomb for what it is: the visible insanity of a civilization that has obey the laws of life.”- Lewis Mumford, 1946

The age of warrior kings and of warrior presidents has passed. The nuclear age calls for a different kind of leadership....a leadership of intellect, judgment, tolerance and rationality, a leadership committed to human values, to world peace, and to the improvement of the human condition. The attributes upon which we must draw are the human attributes of compassion and common sense, of intellect and creative imagination, and of empathy and understanding between cultures."  - William Fulbright

“Any nation that year after year continues to raise the Defense budget while cutting social programs to the neediest is a nation approaching spiritual death.” - Rev. MLK
Establishment of Israel
"On the day of the termination of the British mandate and on the strength of the United Nations General Assembly declare The State of Israel will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel: it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion it will guarantee freedom of religion [and] conscience and will be faithful to the Charter of the United Nations." - May 14, 1948. The Declaration of the Establishment of Israel
Digg The WAWA Site?
Help spread the news by letting know you digg our site!

posted 3/25/2009

Download New eBook
So, That was 54...
An e-book

Read Why

Copyright © 2004-2022 On Track Marketing | Site Design and Hosting by On Track Marketing.
Proud team member of: Global Market Consulting.

submit to reddit Share/Save/Bookmark