Canary In The Coal Mine

Argentina's Cozy Relations with Iran

by Anna Mahjar-Barducci  | Hudson-NY.org  |  December 16, 2011

 

Hector Timerman (Pictured) recently rebutted an article, "Argentina Flirts with Iran as the West Watches Nervously," published by Reuters in which Reuters underlines Buenos Aires' "quietly reaching out to Iran, worrying key Western powers and Israel as they try to tighten Tehran's international isolation over its nuclear program."Reuters also quoted unnamed diplomats as saying that Argentina's motives for warming up to Iran are unclear: "In addition to boosting trade with Iran, some envoys said Argentina was pursuing a Brazilian-style foreign policy emphasizing ties with nonaligned developing nations,"

Timerman's reply was immediate. In Telam, the national news agency of Argentina, the Minister, while accusing Reuters of having refused to publish his reply to the article, strongly defended Argentina's relations with Iran. Timerman said that the growth of the bilateral trade with Iran was not the result of the political will of the government, but rather of private agents. He added that he felt irritated by the allegation that he had offered the Iranians to abandon the investigation into the 1994 terrorist attack in Buenos Aires against the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association (AMIA): "Our commitment is to the victims of AMIA and to the desire of justice shared by all the Argentines. Iran's cooperation [to solve the AMIA case] is relevant to advance this cause, and that explains as a necessary gesture of good will the fact that our U.N. delegate did not abandon his seat while the Iranian President was making his presentation before the General Assembly."

Timerman's letter, however, appears contradictory and full of meaningless explanations. He affirms that Argentina is not isolating Iran because a constructive dialogue with Teheran is "relevant" for the progress of the AMIA investigation. Hence, he claims people should regard, as a "gesture of goodwill," Argentina's ambassador to the UN, Jorge Arguello's having remained deferentially seated to listen to the usual rigmarole of the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad against Israel and the promises to destroy it -- thus breaking with the tradition observed by other Western states to leave the hall when Ahmadinejad delivered his hate-filled speeches.

So, let us get this straight: To have Iran "help out" in the investigation of the bombing of the Jewish center in Buenos Aires, ?Argentina is ready to give a goodwill gesture in support of Iran's ambition to erase the whole of Israel off the map?

Timerman then said he felt irritated by the allegation that he offered the Iranian government Argentina's abandoning the investigation on the AMIA attack. In April 2010, however, the Argentinean paper Perfil stated it had received verifiable information that in a meeting in January with Iran's ally, Syrian President Bashar Assad, Timerman had offered to drop investigation relating to Iran's 1994 bombings in Buenos Aires in return, it seems, for deepening economic relations between Argentina and Iran.. According to Perfil, Syria then passed Timerman's offer to Iran. In a leaked cable quoted by the newspaper, Iran's Foreign Minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, allegedly told the Iranian President that "Argentina is no longer interested in solving those two attacks, but in exchange prefers improving its economic relations with Iran."

The Iranian government, perhaps secure in the knowledge that Argentina was not oing to pursue serious investigations, said that it now wanted to "uncover the truth" behind the AMIA bombing. Iran's Foreign Ministry wrote a statement declaring that, "the ministry denounces the fact that the truth about the criminal action has become the target of plots and political games and that Argentine officials at the time, whose illegal actions have been disclosed and convicted by the court in this regard, misled judicial investigation and set the stage for the escape of the real culprits behind the atrocity from the hands of justice through pointing a finger of blame at a number of nationals of the Islamic Republic of Iran."

Despite these contradictory remarks, Timerman said that Iran's offer was "an unprecedented and very positive step" [sic]. The Islamic Republic, however, denies that Iranian citizens were involved in the Buenos Aires bombing, and said that it is preparing its own report on the bombing to bring forth the truth. Given that in the past the Iranian government has accused the "Zionists" of perpetrating the 1994 bombing, what the report will most likely bring forth are loopy allegations that the "Jews" committed the attack against the Jewish center in Buenos Aires. Timerman apparently qualifies Iran's allegations as a "positive step" towards solving the AMIA's case.

For more than a decade, Argentina had done little to investigate the attacks. When Nestor Kirchner became president of Argentina in 2003, however, he vowed to reopen the case, and called the neglect of it "a national disgrace." Several years later, former Iranian President Ali Rafsanjani was among those indicted by Argentine prosecutors and sought by Interpol.

Relations between Iran and Argentina have been virtually frozen for years, but apparently the frost was only superficial; underneath, business was as good as ever, and getting better and better. Last year, Argentina's exports to Iran rose by 70%. reaching a hefty $ 1.5 billion. Iran has also become the most important buyer of Argentina's corn. It looks now as though even that superficial layer of frost has thawed.

One major forward step was made by Argentina's president Cristina Fernandez when, last September, she told the UN General Assembly that her country was ready to seek mediation with Iran. The timing of the announcement could not have come at a better time for Iran, then struggling against sanctions imposed by the West and looking for friends, old and new, who could help the Ayatollahs overcome their current difficulties. Her announcement could not have come in a worse time for Western chancelleries, which are aware that their current chance of success in the tug of war against Iran depends on the compactness of the Western front to impose harsh sanctions.

Reuters also reported that a Western diplomat had declared that "Iran and Argentina have recently been taking a number of overt steps - in some cases in response to pressure brought to bear by Iran - to open a clean slate in the countries' political relations."

Apart from obvious trading advantages, Argentina seems to be pursuing the path of other Latin American countries in a revival of non-aligned countries, which are anything but non-aligned. Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez has created a pro-Iranian, anti-Western school of thought in Latin America; Argentina's government is evidently among his disciples.

 

Source: http://www.hudson-ny.org/2675/argentina-iran-relations

Video: The Muslim Brotherhood’s Progress in the Middle East and What it Means for the World

by Erick Stakelbeck, CBNNews Terrorism Analyst  |  CBN.com  |  December 13, 2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

On this week's edition of the Stakelbeck on Terror show, CBN News analyzes the Muslim Brotherhood's recent success across the Middle East and North Africa, as well as the group's plans for global domination.

See how the Brotherhood is making major inroads across Europe and even in the United States government.

CBN News also sits down with Israeli Defense Forces spokeswoman Lt. Col. Avital Leibovich to discuss the rising threats toward Israel and the rest of the Middle East.

Also, a leading Iran expert explains why the country wouldn't hesitate to use a nuclear weapon.

 

 

 

Source: http://www.cbn.com/media/player/index.aspx?s=/Archive/News/Stakelbeck_Terror_121311_WS&search=stakelbeckepisodes&p=1&parent=0&subnav=false

No Way to Please the American Government, Media, Experts

by Barry Rubin  |  JPost.com  |  December 18, 2011

 

In a world that has moved so far to the political Left, it is hard to know anymore just what a ‘centrist’ Israeli view would be.

There is a constant effort – especially by the anti-Israel Left (and also by its anti- Semitic portions) to portray those who express mainstream public and professional Israeli views as “right-wing” or “Likudnik.”

This leads me to wonder what one would have to say to please these people. What would be centrist? What would be the equivalent of “liberal?” I presume one would have to say that US President Barack Obama is the best American president for Israel ever (even he says so!), and that there are no problems in the US-Israel relationship. Furthermore, even if there were to be problems, they would be entirely due to the Israeli government’s selfish, short-sighted and unreasonable intransigence.

To them, the only acceptable liberal view would state that peace with the Palestinians could be achieved within a few months if only Israel would make a few more concessions and stop being so belligerent and stubborn. The Palestinian Authority wouldn’t even have to change any of its policies, wouldn’t have to stop anti-Israel and anti-Semitic incitement or admit openly, clearly and in Arabic that the Jews have a right to an independent country in the historic land of Israel, nor would the Palestinians be required to negotiate or compromise. Israelis should never talk about these things.

I suppose the only acceptable liberal view is that the PA sincerely wants peace, and if given the West Bank plus a corridor to the Gaza Strip and all of east Jerusalem it would be a reliable partner and keep all of its commitments. In exchange for a peace agreement, Israel should withdraw to the 1967 borders with minor modifications and dismantle all settlements. But to ask for recognition by the PA of Israel as a Jewish state, prior agreement to resettle all Palestinian refugees in Palestine (or where they are living now), and demilitarization are unreasonable demands and should be dropped because these demands only block peace.

IF ALL the above were to happen, the liberal view must be that the Middle East would become quiet and peaceful. Islamists would either become moderate or lose support. Terrorism against the West would cease and America would be very popular, nor is the PA-Hamas partnership really a problem, because once there is a peace agreement, Hamas will give up its goal of wiping Israel off the map and there will be no more rocket, mortar, or cross-border attacks. But if Hamas does attack Israel from the Gaza Strip then Israel shouldn’t retaliate since to do so would inevitably involve disproportionate force and hurt Palestinian civilians.

The failure of Western countries to keep their commitments to Israel in 2006 to keep Hezbollah out of southern Lebanon and stop arms smuggling is unimportant, and Israel should not mention it.

That fact is unimportant and should not influence Israel’s thinking or actions, and neither should the experiences of the 1990s peace process and 2000 Camp David meeting.

As for Islamist takeovers in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, Israel really has nothing to fear. The Muslim Brotherhood is really moderate, and Israel should stop talking about a supposed threat from these groups. It is up to Israel to patch up relations with Egypt and it should not be concerned about cross-border terrorist attacks, repeated assaults on the natural gas pipeline or the government permitted mob takeover of the Israeli Embassy in Cairo. Perhaps Israel should agree to renegotiate the Egypt-Israel peace treaty.

Same with regard to Turkey.

Israel should apologize to Ankara for letting IDF soldiers defend themselves after being attacked by jihadi terrorists on the Mavi Marmara.

It should pay compensation to the families of the attackers and allow the whole-scale import of advanced weaponry to the Gaza Strip. The collapse of the Israel- Turkey relationship was completely Israel’s fault.

Israel should give up any option of attacking Iran’s nuclear weapons’ facilities at any time, not only now to prevent Tehran from getting such weapons but presumably in the future as well if there is a perceived threat from Iran. Instead, Israel should depend on US protection. If Iran hits Israel with nuclear weapons, the United States will then (probably?) retaliate.

I HONESTLY don’t think I’ve exaggerated the attitudes of American and European leftists (including many Jews) about “proper” Israeli policy.

Strangely, I don’t see the Kadima or Labor parties adopting such a program. It would be amusing to survey random Israeli pedestrians on the street in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem about what they think of the “liberal” plan for Israel.

As always, since the mainstream Western media generally does not allow a real response to the ridiculousness of the program for Israel it so often advocates you won’t be reading any of the points made above there. People will just be left to believe that the current government is just unreasonably reactionary; that most Israelis support Obama (or that they deserve what they get if they don’t); and that the region would be just fine if only Israel would let the American far- Left choose its government.

Indeed, if any left-wing blog mentions this article it will only be to brand it “right-wing.”

The writer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and a featured columnist at Pajamas Media. His new book, Israel: An Introduction, will be published by Yale University Press in January.

 

Source: http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=249971

Coming War Threat: Terrorists Developing a Safe Haven in Egypt to Attack Israel

by Barry Rubin  |  PJMedia.com  |  December 18, 2011

 

 

 

 

What's Hecuba to him, or he to Hecuba,

That he should weep for her? What would he do,

Had he the motive and the cue for passion

That I have? He would drown the stage with tears

And cleave the general ear with horrid speech…. 

–William Shakespeare, “Hamlet”

Or, in other words, do these writers, policymakers, and “experts” care  what happens in the Middle East? War? Bloodshed? Repression? Christians fleeing; women being turned into chattel? Just a possible boost to their careers and a test for their theories. A good luncheon topic. But this is real, all too real.

First, a word on contingencies. Governments and political analysts are supposed to examine likely problems in order that they can be evaded or minimized. The time to be alarmed is not when problems become visible but when governments refuse to recognize their existence. Western regimes and analysts are generally taking a best-possible-case view on Egypt and other developing issues in the region. I’m tempted to say they are taking a fantasy view. They dismiss not just worst-case but highly likely case scenarios. Now that’s what’s alarming.

In the Sinai Peninsula, Hamas is building support bases and arms-manufacturing facilities including those for building rockets. Over time, these rockets will no doubt be upgraded.  In other words, Egypt is becoming a safe haven for anti-Israel terrorism. We know that these attacks will come from the Gaza Strip. The only question is whether at some point they will come directly across the Egypt-Israel border.

Israel had a long experience with three comparable situations. In the  1950-56 era, Egypt was a safe haven for terror attacks into Israel; in the 1967-1970 period, Jordan played this role. During the 1970s and 1980s, even down to today, Lebanon did so, with the safe haven in Syria. The difference was that Israel did attack into Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and even occasionally into Syria in reponse to this situation.

Such an attack into Egypt in response to Egyptian involvement in attacks through the Gaza Strip is unthinkable given what an Egypt-Israel war would look like. And that doesn’t mean there won’t be sporadic attacks across the Egypt-Israel border also that would present similar problems.

There is a pattern here.

Israel, of course, is quickly building a border fence, paid for by a 2 percent cut in the budgets of government agencies, and thus the salaries of government employees.

Meanwhile, too, Libyan weapons, including Russian-made anti-plane rockets that can be fired by one man, are also making their way into the Gaza Strip. From there, or from Egyptian territory, one of them could be fired at an Israeli passenger plane on the Tel Aviv-Eilat route.

Israel has permitted more Egyptian military units to enter Sinai even though this was restricted by their peace treaty. But that doesn’t mean those forces will do anything, or at least do much, against these activities. After all, would Egypt’s army dare suppress Hamas though it is seen by most Egyptians — and soon by a majority in Egypt’s parliament — as heroic? What! Will they act as bodyguards for the evil Zionist entity that is allegedly committing genocide right next door? (That last sentence was a paraphrase of what a leading Egyptian “moderate” claimed in speaking to an American university audience.)

And let’s not forget that there are corrupt officers and also officers who sympathize with Hamas. What if they just don’t follow orders from Cairo?

So Israel’s first step is to go to the Egyptian army and ask that it do something. If it says “yes,” well and good. But what if it doesn’t do much or anything? Have you noticed that even now, the army keeps backing down to the Brotherhood? For example, the military junta claimed a share in writing the new Constitution and when the Brotherhood rejected this, the generals then pulled back. The parliament dominated by the Brotherhood and Salafists will write the Constitution without outside interference.

What does this tell us about the army’s future willingness or ability to stop the Islamists from running wild, attacking Israel, etc.?

There will also be the large Salafist contingent in parliament to keep happy. The Salafists will build networks to protect and help Hamas and small groups that might want to attack Israel from Egypt. Indeed, large parts of the Sinai are already developing toward anarchy and becoming a safe haven zone for international terrorists.

Next, what happens when there is an Islamist parliament, a president who is either Islamist or dependent on Brotherhood support, and an Islamist constitution? Who is going to order Egypt’s army to crack down on Hamas and to close its facilities?  Nobody.

And finally, what happens when Israel goes to the United States and asks President Obama to put pressure on Egypt to close down Hamas operations? Just guess.

Here’s a wonderful example of how this system works in another country. In Lebanon, Hizballah is creating its own secure strategic communications network without any government sanction. In one place, local people attacked workers building Hizballah facilities in their village. The Lebanese communications minister refused to interfere, supporting Hizballah’s actions. He explained that the Lebanese government accepted the project since almost anything was justified since Hizballah was fighting Israel. The opposition publication, Now Lebanon, responded that this is “a phone network that will be used by Iran and Syria (let’s not mince words) to carry out its regional ambitions.”

But Lebanon’s government has no interest in restricting any war-making activities on Israel. So what can we expect in Egypt?

What counter-forces are going to make the problems go away? The army does not have to close Hamas facilities to maintain its own interests. Nor does it have to do so to keep U.S. aid. There is nothing that is going to block this from happening unless Hamas makes the huge mistake of interfering in Egyptian politics and becoming involved with those staging armed struggle within Egypt. Hizballah made that mistake a few years ago.

Want to know how Middle East politics really work? A couple of years ago Israel noted that the Egypt-Gaza smuggling level had gone way down. Western media praised Egypt for acting. In fact, what had happened was that Egyptian officers on the border had demanded a higher price in bribes; the smugglers had refused, so the officers had cracked  down until they got more money at which point they opened the gates again.

I repeat: to point out the likelihood of such contingencies is of vital importance. The Israeli government is aware of these things and working to deal with them. What kind of planning and thinking for such dangerous situations is going on in the West? Little or none, because they don’t take these things seriously.

Source: http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2011/12/18/a-coming-war-threat-terrorists-are-developing-a-safe-haven-in-egypt-to-attack-israel/?singlepage=true

CSUN Accused of Promoting Anti Semitism on Taxpayer’s Dime

by Katharine Russ  |  CityWatchLA.com  |  December 15, 2011

 

Russ Report 

Photo from: http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/

Controversy over a California State University- Northridge (CSUN) website hosted by Mathematics professor, David Klein (Pictured) has raised the ire of some Los Angeles tax payers and caught the attention of the AMCHA Initiative, an organization that “protects Jewish Students.” 
 

Rabbi Ahud Sela reached out to Congressional Candidate Mark Reed because several Officials, including Assemblymen, Congressmen, the Governor and the Mayor failed to respond to dozens of letters written by community members and organizations expressing grave concerns for the safety of Jewish students on campus. 

Reed said he was outraged that CSUN would defend such behavior and appalled that Government Officials condone these actions at taxpayer expense.

Klein, a Founding member of the Academic Boycott of Israel Campaign, wrote and posted a letter on the CSUN server to CSU Chancellor Charles Reed signed by several CSU Faculty, Staff, and Administrators. The letter strongly urged Chancellor Reed not to reinstate the CSU Israel Study Abroad Program to what he calls “apartheid” Israel. 

Klein’s website on the server of the CSUN Mathematics Department, also spouts such claims as, “The result of Israeli state policies has been a 60 year program of ethnic cleansing, including expulsion of the Palestinian population, military occupation, and mass murder” and “Israel avoids peace because peace interferes with territorial expansion and ethnic cleaning." 

Several pictures of dead and bleeding babies were posted to the CSUN site by Klein to support his agenda and his claim of Israel’s alleged atrocities.

A November 22 letter co-authored by Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, Lecturer, University of California at Santa Cruz (UCSC) and Co-founder the AMCHA Initiative, advised CSUN President, Dr. Jolene Koester that, “Professor Klein’s “Boycott Israel” page contains a litany of false and inflammatory statements and photographs intended to incite hatred and promote political activism against the Jewish State. 

“We believe it is important for the CSU leadership to know that members of the Jewish community are outraged that a publicly funded university is hosting an anti Semitic website.” 

Jack Kessler, Cal Alumnus- Class of 1968, was just one of those deeply offended by Klein’s site and said, “There is a vast difference between private speech and speech appearing on a website paid for with mandatory taxes.  It is the same difference between a crucifix on the wall of a church and one on the wall of city hall.  It is as false and misleading to claim freedom of speech in the former case, as it would be to claim freedom of religion in the latter. 

“Professor Klein is free to spout whatever racist calumnies he likes, but not on a server operated by the state.” 

Koester’s reply to Benjamin did not address AMCHA’s concerns and excused Klein’s hateful content. 

According to Benjamin, after an exchange of written arguments between Benjamin and Koester, Koester callously replied, “Too bad.”

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects statements expressing hatred of an ethnic, racial or religious nature including the mention of individuals and the distress those statements can cause. 

But as some have pointed out, - The Public Health and Welfare SUBCHAPTER V (42 U.S.C §§ 2000d - 2000d-7 TITLE 42 ) notes that FEDERALLY ASSISTED PROGRAMS must halt funding of any institution of public education that allows such “hate.” Those public institutions can be subject to federally sanctioned lawsuits and indictment as well.

And the California Education Code (Section 89005.5) provides that the name "California State University, and the names of all of the CSU campuses, nicknames and abbreviations belong to the State of California and that it is inappropriate to use the CSU name without the written permission of the institution for any purpose, including: Advertising any meeting or activity that has the purpose of supporting or opposing any political or religious activity. Every person violating this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.” 

Education Code also provides for the safety of all students. 

In addition, it would appear that CSUN has also violated some of its own established policies in its disregard to Klein’s use of a publicly funded website.

Klein’s website completely defies the Mission Statement of the California State University by failing to “promote an understanding and appreciation of the people’s cultures and diversity of the world.” 

Nor does his website “provide and sustain an environment conducive to sharing, extending, and critically examining knowledge and values, and to furthering the search for wisdom.”

In her June 2009 complaint to the San Francisco Office for Civil Rights (OCR)- U.S. Department of Education (link), Benjamin alleges “a long-standing and pervasive pattern of discrimination against Jewish students” that continues on UCSC campuses today.

Benjamin complained, “The harassing and intimidating environment for Jewish students has been worsened by the fact that NO other racial or national origin group on campus has been subjected by faculty or administrators to such hostile and demonizing criticism.”

Benjamin noted one student’s letter that said, “I am what you would call "pro-Israel", but this does not make me ‘anti-Palestinian.’ These dualistic terms only perpetuate the conflict. I support the existence of Israel, but I also have utmost sympathy for the Palestinian struggle, and I am critical of Israel's actions that disturb the lives of Palestinian civilians.

“That said, where is the discussion about Hamas? Why does the blame go directly to Israel without any disdain for Hamas? Or for the various other terrorist groups that invest in violence and hatred rather than the welfare of the Palestinians?

“I am so perplexed and distressed when intelligent academics fail to recognize Israel's legitimate right to exist as a Jewish state in the Middle East. This anti-Zionism is tossed around without any compassion to the Jewish people. As a Jew, Israel is central to my identity--to my culture, to my religion, to my ethnicity. To claim so misguidedly that Israel is illegitimate, and furthermore, should be revoked--is so hurtful and so offensive beyond words.” 

The Office of Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education is now investigating Benjamin’s complaint, the first of its kind. 

Leila Beckwith, Professor Emeritus in Pediatrics at University of California Los Angeles, founded the AMCHA Initiative along with Benjamin. In an August 28, 2005 LA Times article, Beckwith wrote, “From 1934 to 2003, UC regulations defined academic freedom this way: The function of the university is to seek and transmit knowledge and to train students in the processes whereby truth is to be made known. 

“To convert, or make converts, is alien and hostile to this dispassionate duty. Where it becomes necessary, in performing this function of a university, to consider political, social or sectarian movements, they are dissected and examined, not taught, and the conclusion left, with no tipping of the scales, to the logic of the facts. 

“Though the school rewrote that description, then-President Richard Atkinson also began the process of gutting its academic freedom rules, and, by 2003, the university had eliminated the statements quoted above from its regulations and removed any obligation for professors and instructors to aspire to maintain political neutrality in their courses or even inform students that other viewpoints exist.”

CSUN is not alone in its support and approval of Klein. Several California State Universities support the demonization of Israel, encourage anti Semitic rhetoric and often refuse to present speakers who bring a positive perspective to Israel. 

Benjamin mentioned in her complaint to OCR, “We contacted the heads of ten academic units and Colleges, explained our desire to bring balance to campus discussions about Israel and the Middle East, and invited them, in the name of academic integrity and the pursuit of a diversity of ideas, to join in sponsoring these speakers. Not one academic unit or College agreed to do so.” 

Randy Reynaldo, Koester’s Executive Assistant, wrote that CSU legal counsel found no violations on Klein’s website. And emphasized, “We encourage our professors—as well as students and all members of the campus community—to express their points of view, even when many others may disagree with them or even find them offensive.” 

In its 2010 Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents, The Anti Defamation League (ADL) cites California with the highest number of Anti Semitic incidents across the nation and notes:  “Jews continue to be the most frequently targeted religious group, now accounting for 84% of religious-based hate crimes.”

Dr. Jolene Koester did not respond to requests for comment.

(Katharine Russ is an investigative reporter. She is a regular contributor to CityWatch and to the North Valley Reporter. Katharine Russ can be reached at:   Katharine.russ@charter.net ) –cw

 

Source: http://citywatchla.com/lead-stories/2595-csun-accused-of-promoting-anti-semitism-on-taxpayers-dime?utm_source=General+CityWatch+List&utm_campaign=b5ad0828dc-CW910012_15_2011&utm_medium=email

Winnipeg Teen Accused of Anti-Semitic Attack Defiant on Facebook, Finding Fans

by Gabrielle Giroday and Mike McIntyre, Winnipeg Free Press  |  NationalPost.com  |  December 6, 2011

 

A Winnipeg teen accused of a racist attack on a Jewish high school student is now stirring debate about the incident through his very public Facebook page. Photo: Ken Gigliotti, Winnipeg Free Press

 

WINNIPEG — A Winnipeg teen accused of a racist attack on a Jewish high school student is now stirring debate about the incident through his very public Facebook page.

Police confirmed Monday a 15-year-old boy had been charged with assault with a weapon for allegedly using a lighter to burn the hair of a Jewish classmate while uttering anti-Semitic remarks in the halls of Oak Park High School.

But while police said it was still being determined whether the boy will be charged with hate crimes, the boy had a message of his own — a picture of himself on his Facebook page wearing a shirt with a slogan relating that he loves “haters.”

And he’s being lauded by others online for the alleged attack.

The incident happened after school on Nov. 18 in the hallways of the school.

Police were contacted a week later and launched an investigation, which led to a charge against the boy Friday. The teen was released on a promise to appear.

The girl was not physically hurt in the attack and has since returned to school.

One of the boy’s friends, a young woman, posted her support for him on his Facebook page.

“What you did should have been applauded. But s-happens,” she wrote, drawing an immediate response from some of his other Facebook friends.

While two people supported her views, two others responded negatively. One called the boy a “skinhead,” while another insisted what he did should “not be applauded.”

The teen’s Facebook page is also filled with other vulgarities, including repeated use of a derogatory term for homosexuals.

The boy has since withdrawn from Oak Park, said Lawrence Lussier, Pembina Trails School Division superintendent.

Lussier said a second student has been suspended indefinitely while the police investigation continues. It’s alleged the second boy was present when the girl’s hair was scorched, although Lussier said the boy’s part in what happened is “not clear.”

“I’m hearing that the police investigation may turn up another person who was involved but that has not been declared as yet,” he said.

Winnipeg Police Service spokesman Const. Rob Carver said officers are aware of a second individual associated with the incident, but no charges are pending.

School officials have since disciplined that boy and a third 15-year-old boy for “one comment each on social media” after the Nov. 18 incident, said Lussier. The comments were “related to anti-Semitism,” he said.

“We can’t claim to police the Internet really. Whatever we can intervene in . . . are things that kids report to us normally, that are affecting the learning environment. Kids come to school scared or they’re bothered by what someone said to them, or generally on some site,” said Lussier.

Carver noted the age of the accused is “particularly unusual” and called the allegations around the case “disturbing.”

“I have been doing policing for upwards of a couple of decades and don’t think I’ve ever seen an incident like this,” said Carver. “This is very young to be holding such … hardened, racist views, and have a lot of violence associated with it.”

As of Monday, police had not laid any charges related to hate crimes, but that could still occur.

“Certainly, when you read this, you wonder about potential hate-crime charges,” said Carver. “The case has been forwarded on to the Department of Justice … and they’ll be looking into that.”

David Matas, a prominent Winnipeg lawyer who is senior honorary counsel for B’nai Brith, said the case shows the “durability of anti-Semitism.”

“The fact that it should arise in somebody so young shows that it’s going to be projected into the future,” said Matas. “It just seems never to end.”

 

 Source: http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/06/winnipeg-teen-accused-of-anti-semitic-attack-defiant-on-facebook-finding-fans/

Video: Experts Warn a Nuclear Iran Would be Game Changer

by Erick Stakelbeck, CBN News Terrorism Analyst  |  CBN.com  |  December 6, 2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WASHINGTON -- Sanctions and sabotage have not stopped them. Neither have threats nor United Nations resolutions. Iran's leaders say they'll never give up their nuclear program-and evidence shows the Iranians are closer than ever before to acquiring the Bomb.

So how would a nuclear-armed Iran change the face of the Middle East and the world?

According to reports, Iran already has enough enriched uranium to produce at least four nuclear bombs.

And unless something changes, it appears the writing is on the wall for Iran's neighbors.

"In the end, I would argue that Saudi Arabia, which is the most Sunni, most Wahhabi -- which is the most extreme of the Sunnis -- is in more danger than America or Israel or Europe or anybody else," Harold Rhode, a senior advisor to the Hudson Institute, told CBN News.

Rhode, a former foreign affairs specialist at the Pentagon, says nuclear weapons would allow Iran to dominate its neighbors and set the global price of oil.

"The Saudis and other people who are supplying the world with oil and gas would have to kowtow to the dictates of this tyrannical regime in Tehran," he predicted.

Iranian leaders are also reaching out to the radical forces that have gained power due to the so-called Arab Spring. They're calling on the Muslim world to unite for a final showdown with Israel and the West.

A nuclear arsenal could be the galvanizing force that does just that.

An Iranian nuclear umbrella could also protect the terror groups Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.

Fear of nuclear retaliation might force Israel to think twice before responding to attacks by these Iranian proxies.

But Iran would use the bomb to flex its muscle far beyond the Middle East. The Iranians now have missiles that can reach most of Europe and they're working on ones that can reach the United States as well. With their cities in the crosshairs, Western leaders could be forced to take a much softer tone toward Tehran.

Some have argued that Iran only wants to have nuclear weapons to deter its enemies -- that it would never actually use them.

Yet Iranian leaders say the return of their Islamic messiah -- known as the Mahdi, or Twelfth Imam -- is drawing near. In their view, using nuclear weapons against Israel or the West could hasten his appearance.

"He will come back and save them. So an attack and a conflagration is an incentive," Rhode explained.

Iran expert Dr. Michael Ledeen, a freedom scholar with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, says when Iranian leaders threaten to destroy America and Israel, we should take them at their word.

"Obviously, their nuclear program is closely related to their messianic vision," he said.

He notes that the West ignored the statements of Hitler and other tyrants during the 20th century and paid a heavy price.

"Over and over and over again we said, 'Nah, they can't possibly mean these things.' But they meant it and they did it. So any prudent leader has to act under the assumption that they mean it and they'll do it," Leeden said.

 

 

Source: http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2011/December/Experts-Warn-a-Nuclear-Iran-Would-be-Game-Changer-/

Is Threat of Home-Grown US Terror Suspects Overblown?

by Chantal Valery, AFP  |  Google.com  |  December 5, 2011

 

Since September 11, terror attacks have killed 17 people in isolated incidents in the United States. Photo: AFP/Getty Images/File, Mario Tama

 

WASHINGTON — The threat of home-grown terror attacks remains a top US concern a decade after 9/11 amid a series of recent arrests, but some experts believe the problem is being over-blown.

Washington has made it a priority to track down "lone wolf" terror suspects who act alone without links or support from a wider group, such as the Al-Qaeda militant group which carried out the September 11, 2001 attacks in which almost 3,000 people were killed on US soil.

"The most likely scenario that we have to guard against right now ends up being more of a lone wolf operation than a large, well coordinated terrorist attack," said President Barack Obama earlier this year.

US Department of Justice spokesman Dean Boyd said officials were now investigating about 10 lone wolf cases a year.

"We have seen a dramatic increase of homegrown violent extremists, including US citizens and residents inspired by extremist ideology, plotting attacks against targets in the United States," he said.

In one of the most high-profile cases a US woman named Colleen LaRose, nicknamed "Jihad Jane," pleaded guilty this year to plotting attacks abroad.

The blonde American allegedly contacted foreign terrorists who recruited her to kill a Swedish cartoonist who had illustrated the Prophet Mohammed with a dog's body.

And then just weeks ago Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez, a 21 year-old from Idaho, was arrested for allegedly firing shots at the White House. He was charged with attempting to assassinate Obama.

But Michael German, a former FBI counterterrorism agent who handles national security issues at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), said the "lone wolf" threat may have been overstated.

"The numbers remain relatively small," said German, author of the book "Thinking Like a Terrorist."

"It's not a non-existent problem, but certainly not something new and growing," German told AFP.

At issue also is the use of informants and whether some of those eventually charged were drawn into schemes devised and laid out by US law enforcement agents, which were never going to be implemented.

Earlier this year Rezwan Ferdaus, 26, pleaded not guilty in a Massachusetts court to planning an aerial bomb attack against sites in Washington -- the latest in a string of US citizens caught through FBI sting operations.

If agents and informants are "involved providing the means to accomplish the plot and that obviously this person hasn't done anything prior the government's involvement, it's hard to know what this person would have done," said German.

"I am not sure that it counts as a terrorist if the government provides the means and the opportunity."

Since September 11, terror attacks have killed 17 people in isolated incidents in the United States, including 13 who died in a 2009 military base shooting.

The concept of US-grown lone attackers has gained growing traction since Army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hassan opened fire in Fort Hood, Texas, amid allegations he had contacts with radical US-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaqi in Yemen.

"Although many of the recent plots may be smaller in scale than the 9/111 attacks, they can still prove extremely deadly as evidenced by the 2009 shootings at Fort Hood, Texas," Boyd said.

America was on heightened alert after the killing of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in May, and during the 10th anniversary of September 11.

But no attack came, highlighting for terrorism expert J.M. Berger the lack of organization by "lone wolf" terrorists.

"They just don't act strategically, they just randomly pick up targets" and "they're always caught," Berger, the author of "Jihad Joe: Americans Who Go To War In The Name of Islam," told AFP.

Department of Justice officials warn threats from "lone wolves" are hard to detect in part because they do not communicate with foreign organizations.

But German is not convinced by the argument.

"This rhetoric is more an attempt to identify an emerging threat to justify continuing surveillance and other counterterrorism programs as the former group of Al-Qaeda is downgraded as a threat," he said.

Berger, meanwhile, said the Federal Bureau of Investigation is "spending a lot of money, time, and energy on people that are not very credible."

One such case may be that of Jose Pimentel, 27, an unemployed Dominican-born US citizen arrested last month in New York for allegedly plotting to build home-made pipe bombs to kill government workers and returning US troops.

He has yet to be formally charged, and the FBI has reportedly refused to handle the case amid huge questions over how solid the evidence is against him.

"In the near future, there must be a serious thought about how these cases are handled," said Berger, adding some of the cases did not justify the means the FBI devotes to them.

Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iY7KyzuHmZV_hh7UY9XpWKynSL9g?docId=CNG.c692205eea1c79e50108f8ba6e772037.1e1

The Ethics of Eric Holder

by Ronald Kolb  |  AmericanThinker.com  |  December 4, 2011

 

When Attorney General Eric Holder recently testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee about his role in the Fast and Furious operation, where 2,000 rifles were deliberately "walked" from the United States into Mexico, his answers at times seemed incredible and stretched the limits of believability.

A few months earlier, on May the third, Holder had testified before the House that he had only recently learned of the deadly and disastrous operation.

But a series of memos was uncovered by CBS News last October showing that during 2010, Holder had received at least five different notices concerning Fast and Furious from Michael Walther, the director of the National Drug Intelligence Center.  He also received another memo from Assistant Attorney General (and long-time associate) Lanny Breuer.

But at the recent hearing, Holder stated three times that he had learned of Fast and Furious only earlier this year, after the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in Arizona.  Five times Holder testified that he never saw any of the damning memos. 

Senator John Cornyn from Texas queried Holder.  "Those are memos with your name on it, addressed to you, referring to the Fast and Furious operation.  Are you just saying you didn't read them?"

"I didn't receive them," answered Holder.  "They are reviewed by my staff and a determination made as to what ought to be brought to my attention."

Cornyn then asked Holder if he had apologized to Brian Terry's family.  The exchange that followed showed a coldness and lack of sensitivity that was truly stunning.

Holder: I have not apologized to them, but I certainly regret what happened.

Cornyn: Have you even talked to them? 

Holder: I have not.

 But Holder continued.  "It is not fair, however, to assume that the mistakes that led to Fast and Furious directly led to the death of Agent Terry."

The day following the hearings, the Terry family responded to Holder with a terse and angry statement.  "Mr. Holder needs to own Fast and Furious ... the Attorney General should accept responsibility immediately. It is without question, the right thing to do." 

That very same day, in an apparent attempt at damage control, Holder responded with a letter addressed to Terry's parents which he immediately leaked to the press before both parents had the opportunity to read it.

None of these events should be surprising considering Mr. Holder's controversial history.

The two events that Eric Holder is most defined by before becoming attorney general were his key roles while in the Clinton administration in obtaining freedom for members of the Puerto Rican nationalist terrorist group known as the FALN (also known as the Armed Forces of National Liberation).  Holder would later follow that by facilitating a pardon for fugitive billionaire Marc Rich.

In looking back at both of those controversies, the similarities to Fast and Furious now seem eerie.  Holder had proclaimed sympathy for the FALN victims, but only after the terrorists had been released.  He also proclaimed ignorance of both Mr. Rich and the case against him, even though the facts clearly suggest otherwise.

The FALN had conducted a deadly bombing campaign in numerous cities around America during the 1970s and '80s, setting off nearly 140 bombs that killed six and injured more than 80.  Their most notorious act was the bombing of Fraunces Tavern in lower Manhattan in 1975, which killed four and injured 60 others, some of them seriously. 

What slowed the FALN's reign of terror was the arrest and incarceration of nearly all of the group's members during the early eighties.  When Eric Holder arrived as deputy attorney general in Janet Reno's Justice Department in 1997, he quickly took up the cause of freeing the FALN, and it became a near-obsession.

Holder met with advocates for the FALN's clemency at least nine times over the next two years, but he deliberately kept the victims of the deadly and unrepentant terrorist group out of the process.  He also never spoke with any prosecutors or law enforcement who had been involved with the FALN's capture and prosecution.

In December of 1996, in the months before Holder's arrival, then-pardon attorney Margaret Love had issued a report recommending against clemency for the FALN and their closely allied group, the Macheteros (machete-wielders).  The latter group was primarily based in Puerto Rico and had killed six there in a number of armed attacks.

Mr. Holder was sworn in as deputy attorney general on Friday, July 18, 1997.  In Holder's first full working day the following Monday, pardon attorney staffer Susan Kuzma -- who had previously served in the Public Integrity office with Holder during the 1980s -- sent Love a memo questioning her 1996 report that had rejected clemency.

By November, Holder had fired Love and replaced her with Roger Adams, who was then a member of Holder's staff.  That same month, Holder and Adams began meeting with advocates of clemency for the terrorist group.

Years later, in 2009 (and just prior to Mr. Holder's confirmation hearings before the Senate), the Los Angeles Times uncovered the fact that Holder ordered Adams to rewrite the Love report and change it to a recommendation favoring clemency.

Adams still had misgivings, so he sent a report to Holder that the terrorists should still be denied clemency.  Undeterred, Holder ordered Adams to revise it.  On August 31, 1998, Adams finally sent Holder the revised report, but he warned Holder's chief of staff, Kevin Ohlson, in a separate memo that if the report became public, it "would be disastrous."

In the report that Adams sent to Holder, he wrote that "I continue to have concerns," including about the fact that the victims had not been notified and that clemency could also undermine investigations and prosecutions of co-conspirators among the two allied terrorist groups.

Holder quickly came up with the idea of an "options memo," to be prepared and sent to Bill Clinton, that contained no specific recommendations.  Acting on Ohlson's orders, Adams complied.

But Holder's efforts still languished until early 1999, when Hillary Clinton announced that she was running for an open Senate seat in New York.

Between March and July of 1999, White House staff with ties to Mrs. Clinton began frequent meetings with FALN advocates, and soon White House Counsel Charles Ruff became involved.  In July, Mr. Holder was turned to for an assist, and the Holder/Adams "options memo" went to Ruff on the 8^th.

And in a move that would remain hidden until 2009, Holder had sent Mr. Clinton his own personal recommendation for clemency.  That memo was acknowledged by Holder, but Mr. Clinton (and now President Obama) refused to make it public.

Ruff also sent his own report to Clinton in early August, but the final catalyst occurred on August 9. According to the New Republic, Mrs. Clinton met with a handful of FALN supporters, including then-New York City councilman Jose Rivera, who gave Hillary a packet concerning clemency for the FALN, along with a letter asking her to "speak with her husband about granting executive clemency."

On the morning of August 11, 1999, Mr. Clinton announced the offer of clemency to twelve members of the FALN along with four Macheteros, and the news stunned both the victims of the FALN and many members of law enforcement.

To make the offer more palatable to the public, Eric Holder had concocted a plan to have the terrorists express remorse for their actions.  But none of them would accept, and the situation went from bad to worse.  As the days passed and criticism continued, pressure from the Clinton administration intensified for the terrorists to accept the offer.

Finally, on September 7 -- a full four weeks after the offer had first been made -- all but one member each from the FALN and the Macheteros decided to accept.  Three days later, eleven FALN members were freed from numerous federal prisons around the country.  Within days, both the House and Senate voted overwhelmingly to condemn the action.

Congressional hearings were called to investigate the events surrounding the pardons.  On September 16, Clinton issued a blanket order of executive privilege in an attempt to fend them off.

On October 20, 1999, Holder appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee.  In both Holder's opening oral and written statements, he stated that "I wish to begin by extending my heartfelt sympathy to those victims and their families whose lives were tragically affected by the criminal conduct of the FALN."

Holder continued by saying that "[i]t is difficult to fully comprehend the extent of the pain and suffering these victims were forced to endure. ... I want the victims of FALN violence to know that our thoughts and prayers remain with them now and in the future."

However, Holder was forced to deal again with the victims during his testimony.  Four different senators asked Holder why none of them had been contacted before clemency was offered.

The first exchange was with Senator Orrin Hatch from Utah. 

Holder: Well, I think that generally we do a good job in getting victim input, notifying victims when pardons and clemency decisions are being made. I think we could have done a better job here. I think we could do a better job generally.

Hatch: You didn't do anything here. You didn't do anything here, according to the records I have. 

Holder: Well, we...

Hatch: You didn't talk to the victims.

Holder was asked the same question by Senators Grassley (Iowa), Kyl (Arizona), and Ashcroft (Missouri) and gave the same response.  What none of them knew at the time was that Holder had deliberately avoided contacting the victims and had met repeatedly with FALN advocates in his personal obsession to free them.

Whenever questions focused on his own role, Holder would either refer to executive privilege -- which he did 40 times -- or shift the blame for the clemency offer to Mr. Clinton -- which he did 15 times.

The most egregious and bizarre claims of executive privilege came in exchanges with Senator -- and Judiciary Chairman -- Orrin Hatch.  The 1996 report from Margaret Love that had recommended against clemency was accidentally released to the committee, and Hatch asked Holder to comment on it. 

Holder: The letter should not have been produced. It seems to me that the information contained in the letter is clearly within the bounds of executive privilege.

Hatch: Seriously?

Holder: Excuse me?

Hatch: Seriously, you can't really believe that.

Holder: Oh, absolutely.

Hatch: Well, we have a copy of the letter. And you are aware that she recommended against clemency. 

Holder: I really would not comment on what recommendations were made by the pardon attorney. As I said, I think that falls well within the bounds of executive privilege.

Later, Hatch asked Holder about the 1999 report that he and Roger Adams prepared that effectively replaced the 1996 Love report that recommended against clemency.

Hatch: Did the second report contain a recommendation of whether the president should or should not grant clemency?

Holder: Mr. Chairman, with respect to those questions, it seems to me the answers to those questions are prohibited by the assertation of privilege of the...

Hatch: How? Tell me. I mean, where in the law do you find that?

The befuddled senator never received an answer.

Hatch also asked if there had been any attempt to obtain information from those offered clemency concerning some of their co-conspirators who remained at large.

FALN bomb-maker William Morales was -- and still is -- hiding in Cuba.  Macheteros Victor Gerena and Filiberto Ojeda-Rios were on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list (Gerena has now been on that list for a record 27 years, and Rios was killed in an FBI shootout in 2005).

Holder replied that "to my knowledge[,] those requests were not placed."

Hatch: You're a former prosecutor. I mean, don't you want to get to the bottom of these things? 

Holder: Sure.

Hatch: Well, then, why weren't those questions asked?

Holder: Because it seems to me you're talking about a group of people who did not recognize the right of the government to even--

Hatch: What's that got to do with it?

Holder tried to shift the blame to Clinton.  "Well, as I said, the power of the president is absolute in these areas...again, it is for the president to decide."

Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama then quoted from a report from Janet Reno's office written the previous month that was leaked just prior to Holder's testimony.  It mentioned the threat of increased violence from the "impending release from prison" of members of Puerto Rican terrorist groups.

Holder answered that "I think that given the terms under which these folks were released, which is where they had to indicate that they renounced violence, makes the report language you cited, it seems to me, a little inapplicable."

On October 21, at a bizarre press conference the day following the hearing, Holder dug himself in deeper.  "What I was trying to tell the Committee yesterday was that the Attorney General's report clearly did not refer to these people [the FALN], given the fact that they have, as a condition of release, renounced violence." 

One day later, Jack Quinn -- the influential former White House counsel for Bill Clinton as well as the former chief of staff for Al Gore -- met with Deputy Attorney General Holder.  Quinn was now the legal representative for fugitive billionaire Marc Rich. 

A look back at Holder's actions during the Rich pardon gives an even fuller insight into the dubious and corrupt political opportunist that he was then and still is today.

In September of 1983, commodities trader and financier Marc Rich and his business partner Pincus Green were the targets of a 51-count indictment that included charges of evading $48 million in taxes, trading oil with Iran while Iran was under a U.S. embargo, and additional charges of racketeering and fraud.  It was the largest tax fraud case in U.S. history. 

At the time of the indictment, Rich and Green had already fled to Switzerland and were living in luxury. Extra charges were added in March of 1984, making it a 65-count indictment.

By 1999, when Rich's attorney, Jack Quinn, approached Eric Holder for help, Mr. Rich was listed on the Interagency International Fugitive List as WANTED by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Customs Service, and the U.S. Marshal Service. 

Rich was also listed on the Justice Department's website as an international fugitive.  The posting further noted that the U.S. "will pay a reward for information that leads to the arrest of Marc David Rich."  Rich was also posted on Interpol's "Red Alert" list.

Quinn first tried to use a more than willing Holder to obtain a deal from prosecutors for his client, but when that scheme failed in early 2000, Quinn would return to Holder later that same year for help -- this time in attempting to obtain a pardon.  Quinn would later state -- and Holder eventually admit -- that he had dangled the attorney general post before Holder in a potential Gore administration.

Holder would claim over the coming years that he was not familiar with who Marc Rich was -- and then gain only a passing familiarity with his case -- even after discussing Rich's case with Quinn at least nine times between October 1999 and January 2001.

In 1976, Holder had first arrived in Washington as a member of the newly formed Public Integrity Section at the Department of Justice.  He departed that office in 1988.

Between October 18, 1982 and July 10, 1984, the Washington Post ran five front-page stories focusing on Marc Rich.  One of three stories from 1983 focused on the infamous "steamer trunk affair" from that August, where Rich had unsuccessfully attempted to transport subpoenaed documents to Switzerland that were recovered at the last moment from a Swissair flight on the runway at Kennedy airport (located in Holder's hometown of Queens, New York). 

The following month, another front-page story from the Post focused on the indictment of Rich, correctly calling it "the largest tax-evasion indictment in U.S. history."  The newspaper ran at least 16 other stories that focused on Rich between 1983 and 1989, and five of those stories were posted on the front page of the Business section.

It would also be discovered (and reported by National Review's Andy McCarthy in 2009, just prior to Holder's planned confirmation vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee) that Holder as U.S. attorney in Washington in 1995 had settled a multimillion-dollar fraud case between the Treasury Department and Mr. Rich.

And in February of 2000, soon after Quinn's and Holder's plan to cut a deal for Rich with New York prosecutors fell through, Quinn sent Holder a memo of talking points entitled "Why DOJ (Justice Department) Should Review the Marc Rich Indictment." 

Before prosecutors totally rejected a deal for Mr. Rich, Holder and Quinn stayed in constant touch after their initial contact in the fall of 1999.  According to notes that Quinn kept of a phone call from Holder on November 8, Quinn quoted Holder as saying that he would "do what he can" and that it was "ridiculous" that prosecutors in New York were refusing to even discuss the case with Rich's attorneys. 

Quinn's notes then included Holder's suggestion to "send letter to Mary Jo" (White -- who was then the prosecutor), and to "cc" a copy back to him.  When Holder received his copy of the letter, he replied to Quinn that "we'll call her and say she should do it." 

The notes added that Holder had advised Quinn to be "reasonable and conciliatory" when sending the letter.  Incredibly, the deputy attorney general was now giving advice to assist the biggest tax evader in history in having his charges dismissed.

Quinn's letter was sent to White on December 1, and over the next two months before White's office replied, Holder and Quinn still remained in contact.  After one conversation, Quinn noted that Holder had "spoke[n] to MJ" White, and "she didn't sound like her guard was up."  After a further conversation with Holder, Quinn asked, "Deal?"  Holder replied, "Yeah, think so.  We're all sympathetic.  Equities are on your side."

But the deal was flatly rejected in early February, and by mid-March of 2000, Quinn and the rest of Rich's legal team began making plans to obtain a presidential pardon for their fugitive client.  Quinn returned to Holder for help that November after the election.

Meanwhile, the Rich legal team moved on what Quinn called the "GOI" (government of Israel) front. Rich began donating what would total 200 million dollars to Jewish and Israeli foundations over the next months.  And according to reports in the Israeli press, at least 120 thousand dollars of Rich's money ended up in then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak's campaign.  Barak would come to play an important role in the coming months.

Quinn touched base again with Holder on November 17 and sent an e-mail to a colleague the following day.  Quinn wrote that he "spoke to him [Holder] last evening. he says go straight to wh [White House]. also says timing is good."

On the 21^st, Quinn met with Holder personally and discussed the pardon petition (Holder later said he couldn't remember the meeting).  Holder told Quinn that he didn't need a copy of the petition, and to just have White House Counsel Beth Nolan "call him."

What Holder was suggesting was to bypass Pardon Attorney Roger Adams, who would have been obliged to contact the prosecutors.  Holder already knew that the prosecutors would vehemently object.

On December 11, Quinn gave the pardon petition to Nolan and suggested that she contact Holder for his input.

That same day, Ehud Barak called Clinton and (according to transcripts prepared by the National Security staff), at the end of the 20-minute call, Barak brought up Rich, and noted that he had made many "philanthropic contributions."  Barak hoped that Clinton would "consider" the case.

On January 6, Beth Nolan contacted Holder for his input on the pardons for both Rich and his business partner Pincus Green (whom Quinn was also representing).  Holder told her that his position was "neutral' in pardoning the two fugitives.

On January 8, Ehud Barak called Clinton again.  And just like the first call, Rich came up at the end:

Clinton: It's best we not say much about that. 

Barak: Okay. I understand. I'm not mentioned it in any place. 

Clinton: I understand.

On January 10, Quinn sent Holder a copy of a letter that he had sent Clinton five days earlier where he stated that "I believe in this case with all my heart."

Quinn added a cover letter for Holder.  "Dear Eric: I hope you can say that you agree with this letter. Your saying positive things can make this happen. Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely, Jack Quinn."

Quinn sent the letter to Holder, but since it dealt with pardons, it went instead to Roger Adams (where a petition should actually have gone months earlier).  Adams's staff realized that it was meant for Holder and forwarded a copy to him, where it arrived on the 17^th.  Holder's staff would later say that he received it, but Holder denied that he ever did.

Adams finally saw a copy on the 19^th, and he drafted a short response saying that Rich and Green should request petition forms.  Adams decided to hold the response until Monday the 22^nd, thinking that Clinton would have no time to pardon them before leaving office.

The rest of the events over the next two days would prove to be both stunning and disheartening.

At 2:47 p.m., Clinton called Ehud Barak, and this time Clinton brought up Rich:

             Clinton: I'm trying to do something on clemency for Rich, but it is very difficult.

Barak: Might it move forward? 

Clinton: I'm working on it, but I'm not sure...here's the problem with Rich; there's almost no precedent in American history. There's nothing illegal about it but there's no precedent...I'm working on it."

At 6:30 p.m., Quinn called Holder and told him that the Rich pardon was under serious consideration at the White House, and that they would soon be contacting him for his input.

Quinn mentioned Ehud Barak's support for a pardon, and his notes show that Holder had "no personal prob," and that his personal feeling was "not strongly against it," but that the prosecutors would "howl."

Quinn quickly called Nolan's White House Counsel's office and told them that Holder was "neutral, leaning favorable."  Nolan promptly called Holder back at 6:38.  Holder then repeated that he was now "neutral, leaning favorable" and had heard that Ehud Barak was now "interested."

After Holder hung up, Nolan informed the staff that Holder now supported a pardon -- to the surprise of the others.  Stunned staff member Eric Angel said, "Why the f--- would he say that?"

At 7:00 p.m., Nolan and Angel were joined by White House staffers Bruce Lindsey, Meredith Cabe, and others for a staff meeting with Clinton, and the discussion focused on pardons -- the last being for Marc Rich.

Clinton noted that Ehud Barak had called him and raised the issue (even though it was Clinton who had called and raised the issue).  The staff expressed strong opposition, but then Nolan dropped a bomb. She said that Holder was "leaning toward" a pardon.

When the meeting ended, no one was sure what Clinton would do.  He then returned a call from Jack Quinn, and he agreed with Quinn's suggestion that the case against Rich was a civil and not a criminal one.

Clinton then informed Nolan and Lindsey that he was going to issue pardons, and to contact the Pardon Attorney office.  Just past midnight, Cabe reached Roger Adams, and then faxed him a list of those being pardoned.  Adams noted Rich and Green on the list, but no information was included.

Nolan's office then faxed the pardon petition to Adams, and he realized that Rich and Green were fugitives.  At that point, the FBI faxed the required NCIC check to Adams.  It showed the indictment that was still pending, and added that the two were wanted for arms trading.

Adams faxed a summary to the White House but was still worried that pardons would be issued.  At 1:00 a.m. he contacted the Justice Department Command Center in an attempt to track down Holder.

Adams reached Holder at his home, and he informed him that Clinton was seriously considering pardons for the two fugitives.  Holder told Adams that he was aware of that fact, and the conversation abruptly ended.

Holder would tell Congress -- and later the Washington Post --that he had been distracted by other issues that night.  On other occasions, he would tell Congress that after he had given his recommendation hours earlier, he thought the pardons would still not be issued.

But Holder would also testify that when he received the warning call from Adams, he thought that Clinton had already made up his mind.

Even at that point, there was still one last chance to prevent the pardons.  Nolan's staff was concerned about the the NCIC listing of arms trading, and at 2:00 a.m., an angry Jack Quinn assured them that there was nothing else.

At 2:30 a.m., Nolan called Clinton and expressed her concerns, saying that all they had was Quinn's assurance.  Clinton's response was to "take Jack's word."  And with that, Marc Rich and his legal team -- with a huge assist from Eric Holder -- finally achieved their goal.

But Holder's abysmal behavior wasn't finished.  By January 22, the issue of the Rich pardon had fully erupted (and would continue for days).  It was in that context when Quinn spoke to Holder that day. After Janet Reno's departure two days earlier (and with John Ashcroft's confirmation still days away), Holder was now acting attorney general.

Quinn again took notes, which he e-mailed to other members of the team late that afternoon.  "Just spoke to Holder. Said I did a very good job and that he thinks we [should] be better about getting the merits of the case out publicly."  Holder added that the press should know about the "support of [Ehud] Barak."

Holder then advised Quinn that he needed to have travel restrictions and arrest warrants lifted for Rich and Green, and to contact Interpol about Clinton's decision.

Then, unbelievably, Holder advised Quinn to go to the Federal Courthouse in Manhattan and move to have the indictment dismissed -- in case the prosecutors had not.

By early February, Holder was under severe criticism.  Crossing paths with reporters, Holder said that "I'll be talking about that later."

On February 6, Ehud Barak lost reelection as prime minister of Israel in an unprecedented landslide to Ariel Sharon.  Two days later, Holder appeared before the House Government Reform committee.

In his eight-minute opening statement (and with Quinn sitting right beside him), he said that "efforts to portray me as intimately involved or overly interested in this matter are simply at odds with the facts ... and it does not now stick in my memory."

He added that when he was first approached by Jack Quinn, "Mr. Rich's name was unfamiliar to me." He added that "consequently, I gained only a passing familiarity with the underlying facts of the Rich case."

On the meeting between him and Quinn the previous November 21 about a potential pardon, Holder said that "I have no memory of that conversation, but do not question Mr. Quinn's assertion."

About the conversation with Quinn after the pardon on January 22, Holder said that "[a]t no time did I congratulate Mr. Quinn about his efforts. If I said anything to him about his having done a good job, it was merely a polite acknowledgment of the obvious[.]"

After admitting that he'd had "conversations" with Jack Quinn about becoming attorney general under Gore, Holder told Committee Chairman Dan Burton from Indiana that "[m]y actions in in this matter were in no way affected by my desire to become Attorney General of the United States, or any desires I had to influence or seek to curry favor with anybody."

Congressman Paul Kanjorski told Holder that "I do find some of these positions almost incredible from the standpoint -- when you first heard the name Rich from Mr. Quinn that triggered no idea who that was? 

Holder: I did not know.

Kanjorski: And you didn't assign somebody to find out? This was unusual. You've never been approached by Mr. Quinn in regard to a pardon before, have you?

Holder: That's correct.

Later Kanjorski asked, "Did you know whether he was a fugitive?"

Holder: I'm sorry, did I know what?

Kanjorski: Did you know whether he was a fugitive or not? 

Holder: Yes. 

Kanjorski: OK. That's a rare classification for someone seeking a pardon. 

Moments later, Holder testified that, "I never really thought that this case was going to move, using your term, given the fact that he was a fugitive ... if I'd known, obviously, that it was going to turn out this way, I mean, I would have done things differently."

Later there was this exchange with Bob Barr from Georgia:

Barr: Did the Southern District of New York oppose the pardon?

 Holder: You mean before the--well, they never weighed in on the pardon. They were never contacted.

 Barr: So they didn't even know that a pardon request had been submitted?

 Holder: That's correct.

 Barr: How about the FBI?

 Holder: Did not weigh in.

 Barr: NSA?

 Holder: No.

 Barr: CIA?

 Holder: No.

 Barr: State?

 Holder: No. Again, there were no contacts between the Justice Department and these agencies. 

Holder concluded his testimony before the House by telling the reform committee's chief counsel, James Wilson, the following about his determination on the Rich pardon:

I mean, when I say I'm neutral but leaning toward, neutral means I'm kind of where I was before, don't have the ability to make that determination, if there is a foreign policy benefit then that, kind of, moves me. I think, you know, as I said, I tried to be careful in relaying that to her (Beth Nolan) so that it would not be misinterpreted. 

Still Holder continued.  "Perhaps I didn't do as good a job with her -- or with you. It seems kind of clear to me, but I guess I haven't explained it as well as I might."

Six days later, on February 14, 2001, Holder appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

This time, though, Pardon Attorney Roger Adams was seated next to him.  In Adam's opening statement, he spoke about the call he made to Holder on the early morning of January 20 after learning that Rich and Green were fugitives.

Adams stated that he "immediately contacted Deputy Attorney General Holder at home, through the Justice Department Command Center, to alert him that the president was considering granting pardons to two men. Mr. Holder indicated to me that he was aware of the pending clemency requests of Rich and Green."

Holder then spoke about the events of the 19^th and 20^th, saying that he was "extremely busy that day and particularly that night."  He assumed that the pardon request went to the Justice Department for review.  He assumed that staff contacts were going on between his office, the pardon attorney's office, and the White House.

He did not think he was the only person in the Justice Department aware of the pardon.  He added that by the time he got the warning call from Adams on the morning of the 20^th, "I thought that a decision had been made, that the president had rendered a decision, had made up his mind...so I took no action at that point."

Holder told Ohio Senator Mike Dewine that "I did not think, given the fact that he was a fugitive, that this ever was a matter likely to be successfully concluded from Mr. Rich's perspective."  Holder then told Jon Kyl from Arizona that "my interaction with the White House I did not view as a recommendation," but there were "certain things I would have done differently."  

In March of 2002, the House Government Reform Committee issued their final report on the Clinton pardons.  In quoting from the report, the New York Times noted that Holder was a "willing participant in the plan to keep the Justice Department from knowing about and and opposing a pardon" for Rich.

The article noted that Holder admitted discussing becoming attorney general in a Gore administration with Jack Quinn, and that Holder's conduct was "unconscionable."  The House report itself noted that Holder's actions were "pivotal" and had a "critical impact."

The report's devastating conclusion was that Holder had "abdicated his responsibilities" as deputy attorney general.

Just two years later, at a Washington, D.C. dinner party in the fall of 2004, Holder met a newly elected senator from Illinois named Barack Obama, and the two bonded immediately.

In 2006, Holder contributed $2,000 to Senator Obama's Hopefund PAC.  Also that year, Holder donated to Senator Pat Leahy's PAC -- another man who would help control Holder's destiny.  In 2007, Holder donated $2,300 (the maximum) to both Obama's primary and general election campaigns.

That August, Holder was mentioned in the Chicago Tribune as a potential attorney general in an Obama administration.  In June of 2008, the American Lawyer wrote that Holder was "playing a variety of positions" for Team Obama.

Obama became the presumptive nominee on June 3, and the following day he named Mr. Holder to help choose his running mate.  But later that evening, the AP posted a story about Holder's ties to the Rich pardon.  At a press conference six days later, Obama sidestepped questions about Holder's past.  That August, Joe Biden was chosen as the running mate.

On November 18, two weeks after the election, Holder's name was leaked to the press that he would soon be nominated for Attorney General. An AP story noted that in the prior week, members of Obama's team had polled the incoming Senate in an attempt to nail down the post that Holder had so long coveted.

On December 1, Obama made it official, saying that Holder had the "talent and commitment" to succeed as attorney general and would "protect the people and uphold the public trust."

In late December, the Boston Globe reported that members of the Obama transition team had been coaching Holder to "prepare" him for what would likely be tough questioning for his confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

On January 9, the Los Angeles Times reported in a front-page story about Holder's years-long obsession with freeing the FALN.  On January 13 -- and two days prior to the hearings -- Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy told the Legal Times that Holder displayed "independent judgment" in helping to facilitate clemency for the FALN, and that debating the issue was only a "rehash."

The hearings began on the bitterly cold morning of January 15, 2009, and Holder addressed terrorism midway through his opening statement: "I will work to strengthen the activities of the Federal government to protect the American people from terrorism. Nothing will be more important."

Soon, though, Holder was forced to address the FALN issue.  He told Senator Sessions from Alabama that what Bill Clinton had done was "reasonable." 

Then Senator Cornyn from Texas got to the heart of the matter:

Cornyn: Did you recommend clemency for the FALN terrorists to President Clinton? 

Holder: Yes. 

Cornyn: Was it a mistake? 

Holder: No, I don't think it was a mistake.

Holder then told Cornyn that "I think the decision was made in a pre-9/11 context." 

But Holder neglected to mention that in the years preceding the clemencies were the attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993, killing six, and the twin African embassy bombings in 1998, killing more than 200.

Holder then admitted to Senator Coburn from Oklahoma about freeing the FALN terrorists that:

You had two United States attorneys who weighed against it, law enforcement was against it. There are obviously the feelings the victims had...I took those into account and balanced that against the people advocating for it.

But Holder had contacted neither law enforcement nor the victims.

Senator Grassley began his questioning after the lunch recess.  The hearing room was darkened, and the now-infamous FBI surveillance tape showing now-freed FALN members Edwin Cortez and Alejandrina Torres constructing bombs was shown.

When the lights went back up, Holder told Grassley that "I've not seen that video before."

Moments later, he changed his story, telling Grassley that "I think I've seen it in some news accounts in the recent past, like, in the last week or so, something like that."

Holder then told Grassley that he wasn't aware of any threats by the FALN towards Judge Thomas McMillen at their sentencing in Chicago in 1981.  For example, FALN member Carmen Valentine told McMillen that "you are lucky we cannot take you right now."

Holder then told Grassley that "I'm not sure I ever described them as non-violent...it's a difference between -- let's hypothetically say -- murder and attempted murder."

Then Holder told Senator Sessions that "I looked into the situation, took into account the fact that these people were not directly involved in incidents that led to death or -- or injuries...it seemed to me that the clemency grant given was appropriate."

What Holder failed to mention was that most of the FALN members who received pardons were arrested in April 1980 near Chicago, and that 29 bombings had earlier been carried out in the Chicago area between 1975 and 1979.  Nine people had been injured, some of them seriously.

When the subject moved to the Marc Rich pardon, Holder's testimony was a tour de force of evasive and misleading statements, and his memory often failed him.

Holder told Senator Specter from Pennsylvania that he didn't remember telling Jack Quinn to avoid the Justice Department and go straight to the White House, yet moments later said that "I never told Quinn to go straight to the White House."

Holder told Senator Grassley that he was not familiar with the Rich case and that he "assumed" that the prosecutors and Justice Department were involved.  He further said that he wasn't "particularly sympathetic" to the case, that he didn't do "anything affirmatively to make it happen, and that "I should have made sure that I was better informed ... about the history of Mr. Rich."

About the 1 a.m. warning call on Jan. 20 from Roger Adams alerting Holder of the impending Rich pardon: "I thought we were dealing with a fait accompli, that the president had already made up his mind."

Then Holder went through a series of pointed questions from Grassley, and his memory seemed to fail.  Grassley asked if Holder remembered saying that there would be "a howl" from the prosecutors.

Holder: At this point, Senator, I mean, we're talking about something that happened, what, 2001? So, that's eight years ago, I don't remember that." 

But things for Holder weren't quite over yet.  On January 21, 2009 -- the first full day of the Obama administration, and only minutes before the full committee was scheduled to vote on Holder -- Andy McCarthy of National Review published an article about the Clarendon Ltd. settlement from 1995  involving Marc Rich and Eric Holder. 

That article, along with the fears of some senators that Holder may prosecute Bush administration officials over terrorist policy, caused a one-week delay in the vote.

During the hearings, Specter asked Holder if he had been aware of what kind of record Marc Rich had.

"No, I was not," replied Holder.  "I did not acquaint myself with his record. I knew that the matter involved -- it was a tax fraud case; it was a substantial tax fraud case."

That case was USA vs. Clarendon Ltd.  The company was one that Rich owned 49% of, and one of the commodities it traded in was metals -- copper, nickel, and zinc.

Between 1988 and 1991, the company had obtained 22 contacts totaling 45 million dollars to supply coinage metal to the U.S. Mint.  But they had fraudulently withheld Rich's name (who was then a fugitive) from the contracts.

The contracts ceased, and the government sued, and the case was handled by the U.S. attorney's office in Washington.  Mr. Holder arrived as the U. S. attorney there in October of 1993, and the case was settled between Holder's office and Mr. Rich in April 1995.  Rich agreed to pay the government 1.2 million dollars, and he even swore out an affidavit and sent it to Washington from Switzerland.

The problem for Holder was that he has repeatedly said that he was unfamiliar with both Marc Rich and the case against him, even though the Clarendon case, along with a mountain of other evidence, shows otherwise.

He also claimed -- just like he would later do during Fast and Furious -- that his staff had kept him in the dark.  In the Clarendon case, it involved a multimillion-dollar fraud and a settlement with a fugitive.  In Fast and Furious, it involves 2,000 guns running untracked into Mexico, resulting in murder and violence in the present and into the future.

But in 2009, as expected, Mr. Holder was confirmed, even though half the Republicans refused to fall in line and accept the inevitable.

Now, Mr. Holder is scheduled to appear before the House Judiciary Committee on December 8 to discuss the deadly gunrunning scandal, and if past is prologue, then the Committee should know what to expect.

Looking back in history at the list of former attorneys general, two from the recent past seem to stand out.  Robert F. Kennedy chose -- at some personal risk -- to take on not only organized crime, but the corrupt Teamsters union.  John Mitchell became entangled in Richard Nixon's Watergate scandal and was convicted of multiple felonies.

It's quite obvious which category Mr. Holder belongs in.  Scandal seems to follow him wherever he goes, and now, either through incompetence or malfeasance, the road has led to Fast and Furious.

Every day that Mr. Holder now remains attorney general further diminishes the office, and the Justice Department's reputation as well.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/the_ethics_of_eric_holder.html

Washington - Feds Agree To Investigate Complaint Against Rutgers Over Anti-Semitic Harassment

From: Vos Iz Neias  |  VosIzNeias.com  |  December 3, 2011

 

 

Washington - The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is investigating the formal complaint filed by the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), alleging that Jewish students at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, have been subjected to anti-Semitic harassment, intimidation and discrimination, in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Title VI requires that recipients of federal funding (such as Rutgers) ensure that their programs and activities are free from racial and ethnic discrimination, or risk losing their federal funding.

The government probe will investigate the ZOA’s charges that the Outreach Coordinator for Rutgers’ Center for Middle East Studies harassed a Jewish student by physically threatening him and by posting anti-Semitic comments about him on Facebook.  The Outreach Coordinator referred on Facebook to the Jewish student as “that racist Zionist pig!!!!!!!!”  and encouraged others to “put his name in fb [Facebook] search . . .  he has a fb hate page” – as if celebrating that there was a Facebook page with hateful comments about the Jewish student, and encouraging others to find it so that they could read the comments and post their own hateful messages.

OCR will also investigate the ZOA’s charge that this same Jewish student was physically threatened on Facebook.  One Facebook posting said, “As I was reading the . . . [Jewish student’s] column [in the Rutgers student paper] this morning, I realized how Im [sic] a pretty angry person.  Id [sic] be happy to see him beat [sic] with a crow bar.  Violence doesnt [sic] solve problems but it shuts up people who shoudnt [sic] speak.”  At least seven of the writer’s Facebook friends clicked “like” on this message, indicating their approval of the violent threat.  One responded with a threat of his own.  The Jewish student sought police protection and removed his contact information from the Rutgers directory.  He also filed a bias incident report with the Dean of Students, which the university is supposed to respond to within 24 hours.  But no one from the university contacted the Jewish student until more than a month after he filed his bias report.  When the student was finally contacted, the Dean of Students informed him that there were insufficient grounds to formally charge the student who threatened him.  The offender was simply given a warning, even though Rutgers’ Student Code of Conduct specifically states that threatening to use force against another person is prohibited and could lead to suspension or expulsion from the university.

OCR is also investigating whether a vicious anti-Israel student group called BAKA (an acronym for “Belief Awareness Knowledge and Action”) discriminated against Jewish students at one of its anti-Israel events entitled “Never Again for Anyone.”  The event was advertised as free and open to the public.  But when a large number of Jews and Israel supporters showed up at the event, the admissions policy was abruptly changed and a mandatory admission fee was imposed, in violation of university policy prohibiting false advertising.  According to witnesses, the fee was selectively enforced:  Those perceived to be friendly to BAKA’s cause were observed being admitted to the event for free, while those perceived to be Jewish and pro-Israel were charged.

Prior to filing its Title VI complaint, the ZOA tried informally to rectify the problems that Jewish students were facing at Rutgers.  The ZOA sent two letters to Rutgers President Richard L. McCormick, detailing the problems and proposing several steps that Rutgers should consider taking to comply with its obligations under Title VI.  Jewish students at Rutgers also made their own efforts to resolve the campus problems, reaching out to and meeting with university officials to seek solutions to the hostilities they were being subjected to.  These efforts were fruitless.

Morton A. Klein, ZOA National President, and Susan B. Tuchman, Esq., Director of the ZOA’s Center for Law and Justice, praised the Office for Civil Rights for opening an investigation into the ZOA’s Title VI complaint and examining Rutgers’ response to campus anti-Semitism:  “Rutgers is a fine institution, but Jewish students there have faced anti-Semitic hostility that is simply unacceptable.  Fortunately, after a six-year campaign led by the ZOA, these Jewish students now have the same legal recourse that other ethnic and racial groups have had for close to 50 years, since Title VI was enacted in 1964.  Title VI investigations on behalf of Jewish students are also in progress at UC Irvine, UC Santa Cruz, and Columbia University.  We strongly praise OCR for recognizing that the harassment, intimidation and discrimination that Jewish students have been subjected to at Rutgers merits the government’s scrutiny.  We urge the agency to thoroughly and vigorously investigate Rutgers’ response to campus anti-Semitism; the ZOA will assist in any way we can, so that Jewish students there will be assured the kind of campus environment that every student deserves – one that is physically and emotionally safe and conducive to learning.”

 

 Source: http://www.vosizneias.com/96144/2011/12/03/washington-feds-agree-to-investigate-complaint-against-rutgers-over-anti-semitic-harassment/