Protesters cry foul over election hires
By Craig Gustafson
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
May 23, 2007
It doesn't take much to rile up opponents of electronic voting.
So when San Diego County decided to hire two new elections officials who critics say have questionable backgrounds the ensuing conflict was inevitable.
Advertisement
About 35 protesters lashed out at county officials yesterday inside and outside of a Board of Supervisors meeting for their decision to hire Deborah Seiler and Michael Vu as the county's top two elections officials.
Seiler, who will take over as registrar of voters June 4, spent 15 years working for two electronic voting-machine companies – Diebold Election Systems and Sequoia Pacific Systems – before leading elections in Solano County. The county uses Diebold machines.
Vu, who was hired as assistant registrar last month, is regularly criticized by voting-rights advocates for his role as elections chief in Ohio's Cuyahoga County. His tenure there was marred when two of his employees received felony convictions for rigging the 2004 presidential recount to avoid a thorough review of ballots. Vu has staunchly defended the employees.
“San Diego has become the laughingstock of the country for election integrity,” said attorney Ken Simpkins, co-founder of Psephos, a nonprofit organization that monitors elections.
“It cannot be an accident that the most controversial elections officials in the country . . . are here in San Diego,” he told supervisors. “An agenda to deprive citizens of clean elections appears to be in place and the people most likely to benefit from such an agenda are incumbents who set the policy for our elections.”
Chief Administrative Officer Walt Ekard adamantly defended his decision to hire Seiler and Vu, saying they served honorably in their previous jobs and will ensure the integrity of elections here.
“I understand there are those of you who disagree with my hires,” Ekard said. “I have heard you. I have listened to you. I disagree with you and that's it.”
Several protesters yelled over Ekard's comments and board Chairman Ron Roberts ejected two of the loudest from the meeting. As one woman was leaving, she shouted, “Everything you're doing is wrong and you're subverting democracy, and we won't have it!”
Supervisor Pam Slater-Price called protesters' behavior “rude and totally unacceptable.” She said those concerned about electronic voting can cast absentee ballots, as she does each election.
Protesters took their message outside of the County Administration Center in downtown San Diego. They held signs that read “Seiler + Vu = Sleaze x 2” and “From taxpayer to Diebold” with pictures of dollars bills being exchanged.
Protesters called on county officials to halt the purchase of any more electronic voting machines until California Secretary of State Debra Bowen finishes a review of the systems in use. Bowen announced the review two weeks ago.
Psephos also plans to look at the possibility of launching an initiative that would make the registrar an elected position.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Welcome To The New Police State
Welcome To The New Police State
By Dick Allgire
5-18-7
http://www.rense.com/general76/amdd.htm
In the old days in The United States of America, a journalist didn't have to get permission to conduct an interview in a public place. But this is a new America, a place where armed security agents watch your every move and require their permission to exercise what used to be a first amendment right.
I've been a television news reporter for 33 years. I first began covering news when Richard Nixon was about to resign. I've gone to airports many times to film-yes we used to use film- and lately to video-tape and interview famous and infamous people getting on and getting off airplanes. I've been around a while and I've covered a lot of stories at airports. Things have changed.
I want to tell you what happened to me today (May 17, 2007) at Honolulu International Airport. I was assigned to meet and interview Nainoa Thompson, navigator of the Polynesian Voyaging Canoe Hokule'a. He and his crew were departing for Japan to sail their Hawaiian canoe on the final leg of an historic voyage. It was arranged for our crew to meet them on the sidewalk outside the check-in area. All I needed was a quick couple of sound bites with Nainoa and two of the young crew members who were leaving to fulfill a cultural mission of goodwill and Aloha.
I arrived with a news photographer at the Honolulu Airport and we paid to park in the parking garage. We walked to the public sidewalk in front of the check-in area where we met Nainoa and the young crewmembers. We turned on the camera and began talking with them.
This is something I have done at least a hundred times over the past 33 years. In the USA a reporter used to be able to go to any public place and interview someone without being rousted by authorities.
This was not a restricted area. We did not attempt to board an airplane, or walk past the security gate, or get out on to a runway. We were not taping near any TSA checkpoint. We were out on the sidewalk at a public facility.
While I was interviewing an 18-year old Hawaiian, asking how he felt about taking a voyage on a Hawaiian canoe several uniformed security agents walked up and stopped the interview. They insisted that we cease videotaping. They demanded to know what we were doing, who authorized us to be there, and whether we had permission.
EXCUSE ME???
In the United States of America that I grew up in a reporter was allowed to interview anyone in any public place, about anything, at any time, without requesting or having to be granted permission by unformed goons. Pardon me- I mean low wage security guards.
I snapped, and perhaps I should apologize to these poor rent-a-cops. I did not say it to their faces, but as I turned to go to the airport security office I did mutter an obscenity: "This is the f&#^ing United States. You don't need permission to do an interview in a public place. This is not supposed to be a goddamned fascist state!"
They heard me. Now I was asking for trouble. They called for backups. Several more armed security guards surrounded my cameraman. He told them, "It's not big deal; we're just trying to interview some people about sailing on the Hokule'a."
I went to the security office and got "permission" from airport authorities to do something that is supposed to be guaranteed under our (former) Constitution.
It saddens me to see America slipping into a state that allows armed security guards to demand "authorization" for something that used to be taken for granted. I never before had to get "permission" from "authorities" to talk to someone in a public place. I brought this up in the security office when they were so graciously "granting" me permission to resume my interview. A security guard in front of a bank of television surveillance monitors told me, "Things are different after 911."
I wonder- what does a well known television reporter interviewing young Hawaiian kids in a public place about sailing on a canoe have to do with 911? How is this a threat?
And the saddest thing for me is this- young people growing up today will simply submit. They won't even remember a time when a reporter- or any citizen- could go to an airport and talk to someone without having to get permission from authorities.
Dick Allgire
KITV News, Honolulu
By Dick Allgire
5-18-7
http://www.rense.com/general76/amdd.htm
In the old days in The United States of America, a journalist didn't have to get permission to conduct an interview in a public place. But this is a new America, a place where armed security agents watch your every move and require their permission to exercise what used to be a first amendment right.
I've been a television news reporter for 33 years. I first began covering news when Richard Nixon was about to resign. I've gone to airports many times to film-yes we used to use film- and lately to video-tape and interview famous and infamous people getting on and getting off airplanes. I've been around a while and I've covered a lot of stories at airports. Things have changed.
I want to tell you what happened to me today (May 17, 2007) at Honolulu International Airport. I was assigned to meet and interview Nainoa Thompson, navigator of the Polynesian Voyaging Canoe Hokule'a. He and his crew were departing for Japan to sail their Hawaiian canoe on the final leg of an historic voyage. It was arranged for our crew to meet them on the sidewalk outside the check-in area. All I needed was a quick couple of sound bites with Nainoa and two of the young crew members who were leaving to fulfill a cultural mission of goodwill and Aloha.
I arrived with a news photographer at the Honolulu Airport and we paid to park in the parking garage. We walked to the public sidewalk in front of the check-in area where we met Nainoa and the young crewmembers. We turned on the camera and began talking with them.
This is something I have done at least a hundred times over the past 33 years. In the USA a reporter used to be able to go to any public place and interview someone without being rousted by authorities.
This was not a restricted area. We did not attempt to board an airplane, or walk past the security gate, or get out on to a runway. We were not taping near any TSA checkpoint. We were out on the sidewalk at a public facility.
While I was interviewing an 18-year old Hawaiian, asking how he felt about taking a voyage on a Hawaiian canoe several uniformed security agents walked up and stopped the interview. They insisted that we cease videotaping. They demanded to know what we were doing, who authorized us to be there, and whether we had permission.
EXCUSE ME???
In the United States of America that I grew up in a reporter was allowed to interview anyone in any public place, about anything, at any time, without requesting or having to be granted permission by unformed goons. Pardon me- I mean low wage security guards.
I snapped, and perhaps I should apologize to these poor rent-a-cops. I did not say it to their faces, but as I turned to go to the airport security office I did mutter an obscenity: "This is the f&#^ing United States. You don't need permission to do an interview in a public place. This is not supposed to be a goddamned fascist state!"
They heard me. Now I was asking for trouble. They called for backups. Several more armed security guards surrounded my cameraman. He told them, "It's not big deal; we're just trying to interview some people about sailing on the Hokule'a."
I went to the security office and got "permission" from airport authorities to do something that is supposed to be guaranteed under our (former) Constitution.
It saddens me to see America slipping into a state that allows armed security guards to demand "authorization" for something that used to be taken for granted. I never before had to get "permission" from "authorities" to talk to someone in a public place. I brought this up in the security office when they were so graciously "granting" me permission to resume my interview. A security guard in front of a bank of television surveillance monitors told me, "Things are different after 911."
I wonder- what does a well known television reporter interviewing young Hawaiian kids in a public place about sailing on a canoe have to do with 911? How is this a threat?
And the saddest thing for me is this- young people growing up today will simply submit. They won't even remember a time when a reporter- or any citizen- could go to an airport and talk to someone without having to get permission from authorities.
Dick Allgire
KITV News, Honolulu
Friday, May 11, 2007
And what would "Pro-Semitism" look like, pray tell..?
That question shut up one of my little Zionist squabble-mates in another forum -- what does "pro-Semitism" look like? Would it be a disproportionately high number of Jews in Congress? Would it be the unquestioning, eternal support, nay, fealty and the forging of foreign policy to please... Semites?
Really, what would "pro-Semitism" be?
The right hates Jews because we killed their messiah; the left hates Jews because we don't lay down and let ourselves be butchered by Arab haters. So what are we to do?
Play the victim card again. It works every time. You've got your "shitty little country" now. Take your claws out of my nation's government and get by on your own. You have more than enough money and do not need nor deserve 20% of the US foreign aid budget.
As if it's a sin to notice such things. "The old adage has it that, when visiting a foreign country, to ascertain who really runs things, one need determine only who is spoken about in whispers, if at all."
A Jewish President? No, I don't think so. Is that "anti-Semitic"? No, it's pro-American. Fuck off and die.
Really, what would "pro-Semitism" be?
The right hates Jews because we killed their messiah; the left hates Jews because we don't lay down and let ourselves be butchered by Arab haters. So what are we to do?
Play the victim card again. It works every time. You've got your "shitty little country" now. Take your claws out of my nation's government and get by on your own. You have more than enough money and do not need nor deserve 20% of the US foreign aid budget.
As if it's a sin to notice such things. "The old adage has it that, when visiting a foreign country, to ascertain who really runs things, one need determine only who is spoken about in whispers, if at all."
A Jewish President? No, I don't think so. Is that "anti-Semitic"? No, it's pro-American. Fuck off and die.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Holocaust archive "under embargo"
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/print/20070507badarolsenarchive.html
Holocaust archive coming to D.C.
Edwin Black
The International Tracing Service's secret Holocaust archive at Bad Arolsen, Germany, is preparing to transfer millions of images of concentration-camp prisoner documents to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum under embargo, according to sources.
WASHINGTON (JTA) -- The International Tracing Service's secret Holocaust archive at Bad Arolsen, Germany, is preparing to transfer millions of images of concentration-camp prisoner documents to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum under embargo, according to sources in Germany and the United States familiar with the transfer.
A May 14 meeting of the 11-nation committee that oversees the archive is expected to authorize the partial transfer, but only on condition that an embargo be imposed on accessing the materials.
The embargo is needed because three of the 11 nations that must ratify the release of the documents -- Greece, Belgium and France -- have yet to sign the authorization agreement.
European sources familiar with the process suggested that Belgium and France would not sign the agreement until after this summer or even early next year because of domestic electoral considerations. Still, the process of data transfer is being accelerated to prepare for the eventual release.
The Holocaust museum has agreed to keep the documents secret until authorized by the 11-government committee -- meaning that for now, at least, the archive's legacy of secrecy will transfer as well.
Museum officials declined to confirm the information or provide details on the pending transfer.
JTA has learned, however, that the transfer will include 10 million digitized images of documents to be transported in several 500-gigabyte hard drives that plug into any computer via a simple USB connection. Small, lightweight, portable drives obviate the prospect of managing linear miles of archival documents.
The museum plans to assemble the raw images into a database with a search engine that can be accessed from one or more terminals in the museum's archive. The gargantuan collection will instantly double the size of the museum's holdings.
While the museum archive is among the most helpful in the Holocaust community, its small staff, handful of microfilm-reader machines and several computer terminals often cannot keep up with user requests, especially in the summer.
In addition to on-site usage of the archive, some 8,000 requests come to the museum each year via mail, phone and e-mail, and the archive staff tries to fulfill those as soon as possible. The backlog for inquiries at Bad Arolsen in 2006 exceeded 425,000, according to a recent congressional report prepared by the State Department.
The Bad Arolsen collection includes records of more than 19 million individuals. Holocaust museum sources admit that massive linguistic training would be needed before the staff could even begin to provide information.
Sources suggest that the information would be accessed mainly via a few on-site computer terminals at the museum. Terminal access would be strictly prohibited from outside the building, even though remote access is routinely available for government and historical databases.
As the museum gears up to receive the trove, several members of the U.S. Congress, the archival community and members of grassroots Holocaust groups are questioning why the museum should be given the documents.
Some 75 percent of Bad Arolsen's holdings provide information on non-Jewish Holocaust victims, which has led several experts on Nazi documentation to say that the collection would be more suited to the National Archives and its regional network.
Critics also are concerned that the museum's unwritten taboo on issues relating to corporate involvement in the Holocaust is inconsistent with a collection that largely involves slave labor. The museum repeatedly has refused to discuss questions involving IBM, General Motors, Ford, Standard Oil, the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and other leading American corporate icons that funded, supported, participated or profited from the Holocaust.
Paul Shapiro, the museum's point man for Bad Arolsen, told JTA that he has quietly assembled a list of companies he has seen in Bad Arolsen archives, but it remains secret. Museum officials refused to discuss "Shapiro's list."
Most of all, some survivor groups are asking why the records would be housed in Washington, where many elderly survivors cannot access them because of the cost, the logistics and their frail health.
"I don't think Washington would be an appropriate place for the documents because the majority of survivors live in New York or Miami," said Leo Rechter, president of the National Association of Holocaust Survivors. "We know that 50,000 survivors live in New York City. Relatively few live in Washington, D.C. The majority of survivors are not computer savvy.
"From a practical point of view, a copy should be here in New York where anyone can easily get to it," he said. "We can arrange rides downtown if need be to ask a clerk to help. But in Washington, these files would be just another museum attraction."
David Mermelstein, co-chairman of Miami Holocaust Survivors of Dade County, agreed.
"If the files are in Washington, it would be a problem. It should be in Florida, Brooklyn, Chicago and Los Angeles, he said. "We have 10,000 survivors here. Most of them of them do not use computers or they have bad eyesight."
Nonetheless, museum officials said they will not permit archival access via the open Internet or via terminals at libraries and universities around the country, the way other databases of documents are commonly accessed. Museum officials declined to explain their motives for restricting access.
However, Mermelstein passionately argued for unrestricted access.
"Every day," he said, "there are people dying not knowing what happened to their loved ones. With the documents here in Florida, we can ensure that anyone could get a ride to the library so they could ask someone to check their name."
One congressional source close to the Bad Arolsen transfer asked, "What am I missing? Why can't these documents be located near the survivors themselves?"
Edwin Black is The New York Times' best-selling author of the award-winning "IBM and the Holocaust" and is responsible for a series of investigations revealing the contents of the ITS archives at Bad Arolsen. His stories on the subject can be viewed at http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/BadArolsenArticles.php.
Holocaust archive coming to D.C.
Edwin Black
The International Tracing Service's secret Holocaust archive at Bad Arolsen, Germany, is preparing to transfer millions of images of concentration-camp prisoner documents to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum under embargo, according to sources.
WASHINGTON (JTA) -- The International Tracing Service's secret Holocaust archive at Bad Arolsen, Germany, is preparing to transfer millions of images of concentration-camp prisoner documents to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum under embargo, according to sources in Germany and the United States familiar with the transfer.
A May 14 meeting of the 11-nation committee that oversees the archive is expected to authorize the partial transfer, but only on condition that an embargo be imposed on accessing the materials.
The embargo is needed because three of the 11 nations that must ratify the release of the documents -- Greece, Belgium and France -- have yet to sign the authorization agreement.
European sources familiar with the process suggested that Belgium and France would not sign the agreement until after this summer or even early next year because of domestic electoral considerations. Still, the process of data transfer is being accelerated to prepare for the eventual release.
The Holocaust museum has agreed to keep the documents secret until authorized by the 11-government committee -- meaning that for now, at least, the archive's legacy of secrecy will transfer as well.
Museum officials declined to confirm the information or provide details on the pending transfer.
JTA has learned, however, that the transfer will include 10 million digitized images of documents to be transported in several 500-gigabyte hard drives that plug into any computer via a simple USB connection. Small, lightweight, portable drives obviate the prospect of managing linear miles of archival documents.
The museum plans to assemble the raw images into a database with a search engine that can be accessed from one or more terminals in the museum's archive. The gargantuan collection will instantly double the size of the museum's holdings.
While the museum archive is among the most helpful in the Holocaust community, its small staff, handful of microfilm-reader machines and several computer terminals often cannot keep up with user requests, especially in the summer.
In addition to on-site usage of the archive, some 8,000 requests come to the museum each year via mail, phone and e-mail, and the archive staff tries to fulfill those as soon as possible. The backlog for inquiries at Bad Arolsen in 2006 exceeded 425,000, according to a recent congressional report prepared by the State Department.
The Bad Arolsen collection includes records of more than 19 million individuals. Holocaust museum sources admit that massive linguistic training would be needed before the staff could even begin to provide information.
Sources suggest that the information would be accessed mainly via a few on-site computer terminals at the museum. Terminal access would be strictly prohibited from outside the building, even though remote access is routinely available for government and historical databases.
As the museum gears up to receive the trove, several members of the U.S. Congress, the archival community and members of grassroots Holocaust groups are questioning why the museum should be given the documents.
Some 75 percent of Bad Arolsen's holdings provide information on non-Jewish Holocaust victims, which has led several experts on Nazi documentation to say that the collection would be more suited to the National Archives and its regional network.
Critics also are concerned that the museum's unwritten taboo on issues relating to corporate involvement in the Holocaust is inconsistent with a collection that largely involves slave labor. The museum repeatedly has refused to discuss questions involving IBM, General Motors, Ford, Standard Oil, the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and other leading American corporate icons that funded, supported, participated or profited from the Holocaust.
Paul Shapiro, the museum's point man for Bad Arolsen, told JTA that he has quietly assembled a list of companies he has seen in Bad Arolsen archives, but it remains secret. Museum officials refused to discuss "Shapiro's list."
Most of all, some survivor groups are asking why the records would be housed in Washington, where many elderly survivors cannot access them because of the cost, the logistics and their frail health.
"I don't think Washington would be an appropriate place for the documents because the majority of survivors live in New York or Miami," said Leo Rechter, president of the National Association of Holocaust Survivors. "We know that 50,000 survivors live in New York City. Relatively few live in Washington, D.C. The majority of survivors are not computer savvy.
"From a practical point of view, a copy should be here in New York where anyone can easily get to it," he said. "We can arrange rides downtown if need be to ask a clerk to help. But in Washington, these files would be just another museum attraction."
David Mermelstein, co-chairman of Miami Holocaust Survivors of Dade County, agreed.
"If the files are in Washington, it would be a problem. It should be in Florida, Brooklyn, Chicago and Los Angeles, he said. "We have 10,000 survivors here. Most of them of them do not use computers or they have bad eyesight."
Nonetheless, museum officials said they will not permit archival access via the open Internet or via terminals at libraries and universities around the country, the way other databases of documents are commonly accessed. Museum officials declined to explain their motives for restricting access.
However, Mermelstein passionately argued for unrestricted access.
"Every day," he said, "there are people dying not knowing what happened to their loved ones. With the documents here in Florida, we can ensure that anyone could get a ride to the library so they could ask someone to check their name."
One congressional source close to the Bad Arolsen transfer asked, "What am I missing? Why can't these documents be located near the survivors themselves?"
Edwin Black is The New York Times' best-selling author of the award-winning "IBM and the Holocaust" and is responsible for a series of investigations revealing the contents of the ITS archives at Bad Arolsen. His stories on the subject can be viewed at http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/BadArolsenArticles.php.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
The Chutzpah Industry
Saturday, May 5, 2007
The Chutzpah Industry
by JON WIENER
[from the May 21, 2007 issue]
Alan Dershowitz is at it again: First he tried to get California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to stop the University of California Press (UCP) from publishing a book highly critical of him, and now he's trying to get DePaul University to deny tenure to the author. The object of his fury? Norman Finkelstein, with whom Dershowitz has been feuding for years. The subject? Israel, of course.
Dershowitz has been telling anyone who will listen, as well as many who didn't ask, that Finkelstein's book Beyond Chutzpah--published by UCP in 2005 despite Dershowitz's efforts--is "wholly illegitimate" and "part of a conspiracy to defame" him. (In his book Finkelstein called Dershowitz's The Case for Israel "among the most spectacular academic frauds ever published on the Israel-Palestine conflict." For more, see my "Giving Chutzpah New Meaning," July 11, 2005. Disclosure: A Nation editor served as a freelance editor of Beyond Chutzpah.)
In the fall, before their vote on tenure for Finkelstein, members of the DePaul political science department received an unsolicited packet from Dershowitz containing his "dossier of Norman Finkelstein's most egregious academic sins, and especially his outright lies, misquotations, and distortions." This kind of intervention in a tenure case is virtually unprecedented. It's one thing to have over-the-top debates, especially on Israel and Palestine; we call that freedom of speech. But it's another thing when one of the parties tries to get the other one fired and publication of his book stopped--we call that illegitimate interference.
The procedures governing tenure review require that department chairs solicit evaluations by outside experts in the field. Freelance submissions by declared enemies are pretty much unheard of. DePaul's Faculty Governance Council objected to Dershowitz's intervention and, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education, voted unanimously in November to write to administrators at both DePaul and Harvard, where Dershowitz teaches, expressing "the council's dismay at Professor Dershowitz's interference in Finkelstein's tenure and promotion case." Michael Budde, chair of DePaul's political science department, told the New York Times that Dershowitz's campaign "shows no respect for the integrity of our process and institution."
Tenure votes are among the most carefully guarded secrets in the academy, but not in this case. In separate meetings, both the political science department and a committee of the college voted to give Finkelstein tenure. The department vote, according to The Chronicle, was 9 to 3, and the College Personnel Committee's was 5 to 0. The confidential departmental report, according to The Chronicle, concluded that "while not all members of the department share a love of polemic and inflammatory rhetoric as practiced by Norman and his adversaries, there is clearly a substantial and serious record of scholarly production and achievement." But Charles Suchar, dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, recommended against tenure. In what The Chronicle called "language similar to that used by Mr. Dershowitz," the dean wrote, "I find the personal attacks in many of Dr. Finkelstein's published books to border on character assassination and, in my opinion, they embody a strategy clearly aimed at destroying the reputation of many who oppose his views."
Among the numerous comments on the case, the most thoughtful come from University of Chicago historian Peter Novick, who has written the definitive book on the history of US Holocaust commemoration (see my "Holocaust Creationism," July 12, 1999). He's been a sharp critic of Finkelstein's writing, declaring that many of the assertions in Finkelstein's The Holocaust Industry are "pure invention" and calling the book "a twenty-first century updating of 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.'" But Novick objects to the way Dershowitz portrayed him--as an ally in the campaign to block Finkelstein's tenure.
At Dershowitz's suggestion, the political science chair asked Novick for "the clearest and most egregious instances" of Finkelstein's malfeasance. Novick replied that while inviting outside opinions on a candidate for tenure was common, soliciting "the dirt" was totally improper, and he wouldn't satisfy such a request. Novick then published key parts of his letter in The Chronicle to publicly disassociate himself from Dershowitz's tactics.
"Of course Finkelstein's work--like that of all of us--is 'flawed,'" Novick wrote. The question, he said, is "whether, on balance, the positive contribution of the totality of his scholarly work outweighs its faults." His own published criticisms of Finkelstein's The Holocaust Industry "reflect my values, my sensibility, who I am...but I don't confuse those criticisms with holy writ." Novick then appealed for "pluralism" in the academy: "There are those who relish the adversarial role, who delight in combat, whose greatest joy is in advancing a cause... such people are often inclined to stretch evidence to the breaking point, and occasionally beyond.... Professor Finkelstein seems to be of that number, as does Professor Dershowitz." That was not his own style, Novick said. While it would be "disastrous," he wrote, "to have a university composed exclusively of people like Finkelstein and Dershowitz," it would be "equally undesirable to have a university composed exclusively of people like me."
Finally, Novick wrote that "Dershowitz's highly publicized intervention has, it seems to me, made it impossible for DePaul to reject Finkelstein's bid for tenure without everyone concluding that DePaul had capitulated to Dershowitz's bullying." If the administration denied him tenure on legitimate scholarly grounds, he said, they'd have to live with the fallout.
Novick told me that he thinks Finkelstein and Dershowitz "deserve each other." But he added that "it's not Finkelstein who's threatening Dershowitz's employment." DePaul's final decision, to be made by the university president, is expected in June.
The Chutzpah Industry
by JON WIENER
[from the May 21, 2007 issue]
Alan Dershowitz is at it again: First he tried to get California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to stop the University of California Press (UCP) from publishing a book highly critical of him, and now he's trying to get DePaul University to deny tenure to the author. The object of his fury? Norman Finkelstein, with whom Dershowitz has been feuding for years. The subject? Israel, of course.
Dershowitz has been telling anyone who will listen, as well as many who didn't ask, that Finkelstein's book Beyond Chutzpah--published by UCP in 2005 despite Dershowitz's efforts--is "wholly illegitimate" and "part of a conspiracy to defame" him. (In his book Finkelstein called Dershowitz's The Case for Israel "among the most spectacular academic frauds ever published on the Israel-Palestine conflict." For more, see my "Giving Chutzpah New Meaning," July 11, 2005. Disclosure: A Nation editor served as a freelance editor of Beyond Chutzpah.)
In the fall, before their vote on tenure for Finkelstein, members of the DePaul political science department received an unsolicited packet from Dershowitz containing his "dossier of Norman Finkelstein's most egregious academic sins, and especially his outright lies, misquotations, and distortions." This kind of intervention in a tenure case is virtually unprecedented. It's one thing to have over-the-top debates, especially on Israel and Palestine; we call that freedom of speech. But it's another thing when one of the parties tries to get the other one fired and publication of his book stopped--we call that illegitimate interference.
The procedures governing tenure review require that department chairs solicit evaluations by outside experts in the field. Freelance submissions by declared enemies are pretty much unheard of. DePaul's Faculty Governance Council objected to Dershowitz's intervention and, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education, voted unanimously in November to write to administrators at both DePaul and Harvard, where Dershowitz teaches, expressing "the council's dismay at Professor Dershowitz's interference in Finkelstein's tenure and promotion case." Michael Budde, chair of DePaul's political science department, told the New York Times that Dershowitz's campaign "shows no respect for the integrity of our process and institution."
Tenure votes are among the most carefully guarded secrets in the academy, but not in this case. In separate meetings, both the political science department and a committee of the college voted to give Finkelstein tenure. The department vote, according to The Chronicle, was 9 to 3, and the College Personnel Committee's was 5 to 0. The confidential departmental report, according to The Chronicle, concluded that "while not all members of the department share a love of polemic and inflammatory rhetoric as practiced by Norman and his adversaries, there is clearly a substantial and serious record of scholarly production and achievement." But Charles Suchar, dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, recommended against tenure. In what The Chronicle called "language similar to that used by Mr. Dershowitz," the dean wrote, "I find the personal attacks in many of Dr. Finkelstein's published books to border on character assassination and, in my opinion, they embody a strategy clearly aimed at destroying the reputation of many who oppose his views."
Among the numerous comments on the case, the most thoughtful come from University of Chicago historian Peter Novick, who has written the definitive book on the history of US Holocaust commemoration (see my "Holocaust Creationism," July 12, 1999). He's been a sharp critic of Finkelstein's writing, declaring that many of the assertions in Finkelstein's The Holocaust Industry are "pure invention" and calling the book "a twenty-first century updating of 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.'" But Novick objects to the way Dershowitz portrayed him--as an ally in the campaign to block Finkelstein's tenure.
At Dershowitz's suggestion, the political science chair asked Novick for "the clearest and most egregious instances" of Finkelstein's malfeasance. Novick replied that while inviting outside opinions on a candidate for tenure was common, soliciting "the dirt" was totally improper, and he wouldn't satisfy such a request. Novick then published key parts of his letter in The Chronicle to publicly disassociate himself from Dershowitz's tactics.
"Of course Finkelstein's work--like that of all of us--is 'flawed,'" Novick wrote. The question, he said, is "whether, on balance, the positive contribution of the totality of his scholarly work outweighs its faults." His own published criticisms of Finkelstein's The Holocaust Industry "reflect my values, my sensibility, who I am...but I don't confuse those criticisms with holy writ." Novick then appealed for "pluralism" in the academy: "There are those who relish the adversarial role, who delight in combat, whose greatest joy is in advancing a cause... such people are often inclined to stretch evidence to the breaking point, and occasionally beyond.... Professor Finkelstein seems to be of that number, as does Professor Dershowitz." That was not his own style, Novick said. While it would be "disastrous," he wrote, "to have a university composed exclusively of people like Finkelstein and Dershowitz," it would be "equally undesirable to have a university composed exclusively of people like me."
Finally, Novick wrote that "Dershowitz's highly publicized intervention has, it seems to me, made it impossible for DePaul to reject Finkelstein's bid for tenure without everyone concluding that DePaul had capitulated to Dershowitz's bullying." If the administration denied him tenure on legitimate scholarly grounds, he said, they'd have to live with the fallout.
Novick told me that he thinks Finkelstein and Dershowitz "deserve each other." But he added that "it's not Finkelstein who's threatening Dershowitz's employment." DePaul's final decision, to be made by the university president, is expected in June.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
One Thin Slice at a Time -- FISA expansion
Intelligence Chief Decries Constraints
Update of Surveillance Law Urged
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 2, 2007; A07
Court orders in January that brought President Bush's warrantless terrorist surveillance program under existing law have limited the intelligence that agencies can collect, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell told a Senate committee yesterday.
"We are actually missing a significant portion of what we should be getting," McConnell said during an unusual public session of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the administration's proposal to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA).
The intelligence collection program was secretly instituted under presidential authority shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and was disclosed by the news media in December 2005. It permitted warrantless intercepts of telephone calls and e-mails between the United States and locations overseas if one participant was believed to be a member of al-Qaeda or an associated terrorist organization.
In January, the administration agreed to bring the program under the oversight of the secret FISA court, which approves warrants in terrorism and espionage investigations. That reversed Bush's position that he had the authority to order the program on his own. In a January letter to some lawmakers, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said the administration was satisfied the new arrangement would have the "speed and agility" to protect the nation from terrorists.
Yesterday, McConnell and other intelligence officials said that the new FISA oversight has been implemented. They justified the new proposal as necessary to expand the information that can be collected by the National Security Agency, which runs the surveillance program.
When Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) asked McConnell whether the current FISA court orders that govern the interceptions "are not sufficient for what you want them to be," the intelligence chief replied: "We are missing things."
Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), the panel's vice chairman, said flatly that the NSA is missing "vital intelligence."
Senators on both sides of the aisle raised questions about the administration's proposed changes to existing laws. A key revision would shift the focus of warrants from the means of communication and where the interception is to take place to who the subject of the surveillance is.
Another provision that attracted interest would relieve telecommunication companies from liability for cooperating with the initial surveillance program or, under the proposed approach, if they were ordered by the attorney general to turn over customer information without a FISA court warrant.
Democrats on the committee made clear that they want a revised surveillance law that would prohibit future presidents from initiating another warrantless intercept program based on the constitutional authority to protect the nation, as Bush did.
"There is nothing in this bill that confines the president to work within FISA," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).
Lawmakers also raised questions about a provision that would allow the government to retain "significant intelligence information" taken in the search of a U.S. citizen's home if a FISA warrant permitting the search is later denied. FISA allows FBI agents to surveil a subject for a short period on an emergency basis before seeking a warrant, but if the warrant is denied, current law allows the retention only of information involving imminent death or harm.
The FISA court almost never turns down a warrant request. Data for 2006 show that it signed off on 2,176 warrants, the Associated Press reported yesterday. One application for a warrant was denied in part, and 73 required changes before being approved.
That would be 3.4% of the requests tweaked prior to approval.
Update of Surveillance Law Urged
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 2, 2007; A07
Court orders in January that brought President Bush's warrantless terrorist surveillance program under existing law have limited the intelligence that agencies can collect, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell told a Senate committee yesterday.
"We are actually missing a significant portion of what we should be getting," McConnell said during an unusual public session of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the administration's proposal to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA).
The intelligence collection program was secretly instituted under presidential authority shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and was disclosed by the news media in December 2005. It permitted warrantless intercepts of telephone calls and e-mails between the United States and locations overseas if one participant was believed to be a member of al-Qaeda or an associated terrorist organization.
In January, the administration agreed to bring the program under the oversight of the secret FISA court, which approves warrants in terrorism and espionage investigations. That reversed Bush's position that he had the authority to order the program on his own. In a January letter to some lawmakers, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said the administration was satisfied the new arrangement would have the "speed and agility" to protect the nation from terrorists.
Yesterday, McConnell and other intelligence officials said that the new FISA oversight has been implemented. They justified the new proposal as necessary to expand the information that can be collected by the National Security Agency, which runs the surveillance program.
When Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) asked McConnell whether the current FISA court orders that govern the interceptions "are not sufficient for what you want them to be," the intelligence chief replied: "We are missing things."
Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), the panel's vice chairman, said flatly that the NSA is missing "vital intelligence."
Senators on both sides of the aisle raised questions about the administration's proposed changes to existing laws. A key revision would shift the focus of warrants from the means of communication and where the interception is to take place to who the subject of the surveillance is.
Another provision that attracted interest would relieve telecommunication companies from liability for cooperating with the initial surveillance program or, under the proposed approach, if they were ordered by the attorney general to turn over customer information without a FISA court warrant.
Democrats on the committee made clear that they want a revised surveillance law that would prohibit future presidents from initiating another warrantless intercept program based on the constitutional authority to protect the nation, as Bush did.
"There is nothing in this bill that confines the president to work within FISA," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).
Lawmakers also raised questions about a provision that would allow the government to retain "significant intelligence information" taken in the search of a U.S. citizen's home if a FISA warrant permitting the search is later denied. FISA allows FBI agents to surveil a subject for a short period on an emergency basis before seeking a warrant, but if the warrant is denied, current law allows the retention only of information involving imminent death or harm.
The FISA court almost never turns down a warrant request. Data for 2006 show that it signed off on 2,176 warrants, the Associated Press reported yesterday. One application for a warrant was denied in part, and 73 required changes before being approved.
That would be 3.4% of the requests tweaked prior to approval.
Command to open fire heard on Kent State tape
Report: Command to open fire heard on Kent State tape
CLEVELAND, Ohio (AP) -- A static-filled recording of war protesters yelling, followed by a voice and gunfire, was released Tuesday by a survivor of the Kent State University shooting who claims the tape proves a military order was given to fire on demonstrators.
"The evidence speaks for itself," said Alan Canfora, 58, one of nine students wounded during the National Guard shooting. Four students were killed in the 1970 shootings, which followed several days of protests over the Vietnam War.
Canfora played two versions of the tape -- the original and an amplified version -- in which he says a Guard officer issues the command, "Right here! Get Set! Point! Fire!"
To the casual listener, the word "point" can be heard followed by the sound of shots being fired. There is no indication on the tape of who said the word.
The tape, played to a group of reporters and students at a small university theater, was given to Yale University for its Kent State archives in 1979 by an attorney who represented students in a lawsuit filed against the state over the shooting, Canfora said. He found out about the tape six months ago while researching the shooting.
Canfora said he will turn over copies of the tape to federal and state officials with an appeal to reopen the investigation over how the firing began.
"We're hoping for new investigations and new truths," he said. "We need truth, we need healing."
After the shooting, the FBI investigated whether an order had been given to fire and said it could only speculate. One theory was that a Guardsman panicked or fired intentionally at a student and that others fired when they heard the shot.
After an initial investigation, the case was reopened in 1973 when a grand jury indicted eight Guardsmen. They were acquitted of federal civil rights charges the next year.
Larry Shafer, a Guardsman who said he fired during the shootings and was among those charged, told the Kent-Ravenna Record-Courier newspaper Tuesday that he was unaware of the tape and that "point" would not have been part of a proper command.
"I never heard any command to fire. That's all I can say on that," said Shafer, a Ravenna city councilman and former fire chief. "That's not to say there may not have been, but with all the racket and noise, I don't know how anyone could have heard anything that day."
The reel-to-reel audio recording was made by a student who placed a microphone at a windowsill of a dormitory overlooking the anti-war rally, Canfora said. The student turned the tape over to the FBI, which kept a copy.
Stan Pottinger, who helped prosecute the Guardsmen when he was an assistant attorney general with the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Justice Department, said Tuesday from New York that he doubts anything was overlooked then.
He said he could not specifically recall the tape, but that audio recordings and film were carefully studied.
"I'm so curious about this," he said of a possible order to fire. "That was a major part of our effort."
But he said justice has been served.
"The Guardsmen were acquitted, the case was closed, the families expressed enormous gratitude for the reopening of the case, and that was it," he said.
But only a small portion of the tape was reviewed during various investigations, Canfora said.
Joseph Lewis, 55, of Scappoose, Oregon, shot in the abdomen and ankle in 1970, joined Canfora at the news conference and said he believes the tape recorded a military command to fire.
"It sure sounds like an order to fire. On that day I did not hear an order to fire. I seem to hear one on this tape," Lewis said.
Scott Wilson, an FBI spokesman, said Tuesday that he was unaware of any request to look into the matter.
The Ohio National Guard had no comment on the tape's release, spokesman James Sims said Tuesday.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Fuck! Then don't read this story! I'll print it out and tape it in a scrapbook or stick it in a file cabinet, k?
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/01/kent.state.ap/index.html
CLEVELAND, Ohio (AP) -- A static-filled recording of war protesters yelling, followed by a voice and gunfire, was released Tuesday by a survivor of the Kent State University shooting who claims the tape proves a military order was given to fire on demonstrators.
"The evidence speaks for itself," said Alan Canfora, 58, one of nine students wounded during the National Guard shooting. Four students were killed in the 1970 shootings, which followed several days of protests over the Vietnam War.
Canfora played two versions of the tape -- the original and an amplified version -- in which he says a Guard officer issues the command, "Right here! Get Set! Point! Fire!"
To the casual listener, the word "point" can be heard followed by the sound of shots being fired. There is no indication on the tape of who said the word.
The tape, played to a group of reporters and students at a small university theater, was given to Yale University for its Kent State archives in 1979 by an attorney who represented students in a lawsuit filed against the state over the shooting, Canfora said. He found out about the tape six months ago while researching the shooting.
Canfora said he will turn over copies of the tape to federal and state officials with an appeal to reopen the investigation over how the firing began.
"We're hoping for new investigations and new truths," he said. "We need truth, we need healing."
After the shooting, the FBI investigated whether an order had been given to fire and said it could only speculate. One theory was that a Guardsman panicked or fired intentionally at a student and that others fired when they heard the shot.
After an initial investigation, the case was reopened in 1973 when a grand jury indicted eight Guardsmen. They were acquitted of federal civil rights charges the next year.
Larry Shafer, a Guardsman who said he fired during the shootings and was among those charged, told the Kent-Ravenna Record-Courier newspaper Tuesday that he was unaware of the tape and that "point" would not have been part of a proper command.
"I never heard any command to fire. That's all I can say on that," said Shafer, a Ravenna city councilman and former fire chief. "That's not to say there may not have been, but with all the racket and noise, I don't know how anyone could have heard anything that day."
The reel-to-reel audio recording was made by a student who placed a microphone at a windowsill of a dormitory overlooking the anti-war rally, Canfora said. The student turned the tape over to the FBI, which kept a copy.
Stan Pottinger, who helped prosecute the Guardsmen when he was an assistant attorney general with the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Justice Department, said Tuesday from New York that he doubts anything was overlooked then.
He said he could not specifically recall the tape, but that audio recordings and film were carefully studied.
"I'm so curious about this," he said of a possible order to fire. "That was a major part of our effort."
But he said justice has been served.
"The Guardsmen were acquitted, the case was closed, the families expressed enormous gratitude for the reopening of the case, and that was it," he said.
But only a small portion of the tape was reviewed during various investigations, Canfora said.
Joseph Lewis, 55, of Scappoose, Oregon, shot in the abdomen and ankle in 1970, joined Canfora at the news conference and said he believes the tape recorded a military command to fire.
"It sure sounds like an order to fire. On that day I did not hear an order to fire. I seem to hear one on this tape," Lewis said.
Scott Wilson, an FBI spokesman, said Tuesday that he was unaware of any request to look into the matter.
The Ohio National Guard had no comment on the tape's release, spokesman James Sims said Tuesday.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Fuck! Then don't read this story! I'll print it out and tape it in a scrapbook or stick it in a file cabinet, k?
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/01/kent.state.ap/index.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)