A Bogeyman Next Door

On July 20, 2004 Kamran Shaikh was arrested in Charlotte, North Carolina. He raised the suspicions of the local authorities when he was spotted filming various buildings in the area surrounding the local bus station.

As Chisun Lee describes in his Village Voice article, Mr Shaikh is just a photography and videography fan. He is also a lawbreaker,- he made "false statements", in every-day English,- he lied about having a Green Card which in reality he does not hold. However, the media accounts of who he is would read drastically different to an uninitiated reader.

The man was arrested three weeks ago and ultimately charged with making "false statements"—telling authorities he had a green card when he actually does not. Lying about his immigration status was by no means angelic nor terribly bright. But press accounts this week—fueled by anonymous law enforcement speculation—made Kamran Shaikh’s fairly common violation seem like breaking news of people’s worst fears come true.

"Authorities probing whether Queens man is a . . .TERROR TOURIST," screamed the August 11 front cover of New York’s Daily News, the scariest words conveyed in two-inch tabloid type. Shaikh was arrested July 20, when local police spotted him videotaping his surroundings near a bus depot in downtown Charlotte, North Carolina.

It is interesting how assertions like those are fed to the media.

Authorities stopped just short of uttering blatant untruths, but their ominous initial remarks fanned a media furor. "These were not your normal tourist videos. This could turn out to be something legitimate and innocent, but it’s raised our suspicions, and we think there’s something else going on here. We don’t like the look of it," was the anonymous government quote the August 11 New York Times ran on the case.

In other words: This could be nothing, and there is no evidence that it is actually something. But we’re going to speculate wildly, anyway.

Well, Mr Shaikh could of course be a terror operative. But to this there is no evidence. But there is ample evidence to the incompetence of the investigative authorities. For instance, if it is true that they confused background conversation in Urdu,- which is Mr Shaikh's native language and which it is alleged is the language heard spoken in the video by Mr Shaikh's company on that day,- with a conversation in Arabic, then I suppose I don't even need to comment further on the subject of the investigators' incompetence.

It very much looks that in a politicized atmosphere of today, when both internal and external intelligence officers are under enormous pressure to produce findings of a certain variety, we need to take with a grain of salt everything they come up with. And we need to question them. And pressure them to become professional and act professionally, not politically.

Also, one need not forget that true terrorists are both savvy and resourceful. For instance, if they wanted a certain building filmed,- would you think they could not pay a white, all-American video operator to film it? We should consider possibilities for ourselves,- not just rely on what the officials tell us. They are not any smarter than us; oftentimes, they are not even better informed. Furthermore, if my experience at a government facility is worth anything, years spent in a government quasi-reality oftentimes dulls both the individual's ability to perceive reality outside and their professional skills.

A View from The Inside

There is a very interesting web site out there, the one hosting articles by Dean Carter, a California death row inmate. Mr Carter professes his innocence of the crime. At one point he decided to make his views on capital punishment and other issues known. He writes the articles and his friends maintain the site.

His latest column is dedicated to the prison abuse scandal in Iraq. I think it is very accurate in its analysis, and I highly recommend it.

Has Rep. Goss Learned Lots of New Things in The Last Six Months?

I never paid much attention to the Director of Central Intelligence nomination process taking place under way now. Don't know why,- maybe, just out of conviction that the whole system is so defective that replacing one player, however senior, is unlikely to make a difference.

However, a friend of mine emailed me with a link to an excerpt of the interview Rep. Porter Goss gave for Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11. And this, I think, is worth a comment.

In this interview, Mr Goss had clearly stated that he does not view himself as a capable candidate to a CIA position. Apparently,- correctly or incorrectly,- at that time he believed that his skills were not up to snuff to be a field agent or a case officer. So, even if he underestimated his own credentials,- what makes him a suitable candidate now? Has he drastically ramped up on his knowledge of high-tech, Arabic, Middle East? Has he at least gotten a confidence boost? Can one get such a confidence boost in such a short time without completely deluding oneself?

Those I think are questions worth asking. Let me make it clear that I am not attempting to rule on whether or not Porter Goss is a suitable candidate for the position of the DCI. It simply appears that a short while ago he did not consider himself a suitable choice, and the question begs asking, what changed in the interim?

'Speak Hebrew or shut up'

Etgar Keret, an Israeli author, compares the lofty wordings of an official document, the Israel Defence Force's Code of Ethics, with the reality of a checkpoint in the West Bank. I liked his humorous style. I also like the notion that while it is commendable that the IDF issued such definitive guide as its Code of Ethics, the value of this code will remain questionable until its provisions become every day norms, until it is actually followed and those who violate it are sanctioned.

Count John Ashcroft in

David Joseph is a little guy, about 5-foot-5, maybe 115 pounds. He's 20 years old, looks younger, and has the sluggish demeanor and sad expression of one who is deeply depressed. He has nightmares and headaches. He spends his days dressed in the blue fatigues of detainees at the federal Krome Detention Center, washing dishes at mealtimes, staring listlessly at television images broadcast in a language he doesn't understand, and praying.

So writes Bob Herbert in his New York Times op-ed piece. So why is Mr Joseph behind bars. Well, he is an illegal alien, a boat person from Haiti.

Mr. Joseph is a refugee from Haiti who is seeking asylum in the United States. He is not a terrorist, and no one has even suggested that he is a threat to anyone. And yet he's been in federal custody for nearly two years.

An immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals have ruled that he should be freed on bond, pending a final ruling on his asylum request. But the attorney general of the United States, John Ashcroft, won't let him go.

Playing his ever-present, all-encompassing terrorism card, Mr. Ashcroft personally intervened in Mr. Joseph's case, summarily blocking his release. According to the attorney general, releasing this young Haitian would tend to encourage mass migration from Haiti, and might exacerbate the potential danger to national security of nefarious aliens from Pakistan and elsewhere who might be inclined to use Haiti as a staging area for migration to the U.S.

Let us stop here for a moment and try to take it in. Essentially, what Mr Ashcroft, The Attorney General of the US, is saying is that he is making decisions on David Joseph's case not based upon the merits of the case, or the personal qualities of the detainee, but in order to affect the behaviour of a whole group, in order to penalize a whole group,- namely, current and potential illegal immigrants from Haiti. It appears fair to say that if Mr Joseph were detained in identical circumstances but his country of origin were Greece or China instead of Haiti he would long have been released on bond.

Mr Ashcroft is firm in his belief that this is indeed the way to go. Or at least his dialog with Senator Specter during Mr Ashcroft's appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee leaves one with that impression.

Senator Specter urged Mr. Ashcroft to consider a policy in which the Justice Department would address cases like Mr. Joseph's on a less sweeping, "more individual" basis, which would enable officials to determine whether there was any real basis for concern about terrorism.

Mr. Ashcroft was unmoved. He told Senator Specter: "Sometimes individual treatment is important. Sometimes it's important to make a statement about groups of people that come."

Be that as it may, Mr Ashcroft seems to be a proponent of the idea of group responsibility. That idea is contrary to the spirit of the US law. If we as a society want to include that notion in the law, we should do so in an open and honest manner. That principle,- the responsibility of a group for individual's deeds or proclivities,- must be made part of the law through legislative process. Personally, I think that would spell the end of the Constitution and the lawful society in the US as we know it, but back-door attempts to run such practices must most definitely not be allowed.

I have recently expressed my desire to see certain government lawyers disbarred. I think we have one more name to add to the list of those lawyers: John Ashcroft, the US Attorney General. I would even honor him with the top spot on that list.

Is This Why James McGreevey Is Resigning?

No sooner did I write my comment on New Jersey Governor James McGreevey's resignation than more details emerged as to the circumstances surrounding it.

Two sources close to McGreevey, both speaking on condition of anonymity, said the man involved in the affair was Golan Cipel, an Israeli poet who worked briefly for the governor as a homeland security adviser despite having no security experience.

This is interesting. Well, if Mr Cipel's job as a homeland security adviser was indeed handed to him as a gift from his lover, then maybe Mr McGreevey indeed should resign. As I said before, the criteria should be limited to professional factors,- and hiring somebody who seems a bit underqualified is, to say the least, somewhat unprofessional.

Mr Cipel is also alleged to have blackmailed his lover the Governor by attempting to extort exorbitant amounts of money in exchange for silence. If that is truly the case, then I think Mr Cipel must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

This Should Be Just A Private Matter

The news is in,- New Jersey Governor James McGreevey is resigning over a homosexual affair. I think that is wrong. Not his resignation,- I am not in a position to tell whether he should resign or not, this decision is clearly his to make. But the whole situation is wrong.

His sex life is his own business,- and nobody else's. He feels that he has wronged his wife and chooses to apologize to her,- that's fine, in fact, that's admirable. Whether to do so privately or publicly is also his choice. However, that is not a criterion by which his performance as Governor should be judged. Nor is it grounds for resignation.

This sort of precedent diverts attention from the simple fact that there ought to be one and only one measure of our official's performance,- professionalism in their position. Other things, such as looks, sexual deviations (or the lack thereof), religious affiliation,- simply should not matter.

I respect Governor McGreevey for having what it takes to disclose the uncomfortable truth. However, I wish he stayed on the job.

Free Speech Zones

In modern Russian the prison jargon has become a significant part of many people's vocabulary. Those who use it are not necessarily criminals or ex-inmates,- this linguistic infusion penetrates all layers of the society, from the streets of industrial towns to the corridors of power. And that is an inevitable consequence of mass imprisonment which reached its peak during the years of Stalin's purges and has remained part of Russia's reality to this day. In his world renowned book GULAG Archipelago Alexander Solzhenitsyn provides a masterful description of how the world of prisons affects the world on the other side of the fence,- linguistically, culturally, mentally and in many other ways.

In Russian prison jargon "zona" (Russian for "zone") means "prison camp". Thus to a Russian speaker this modern term, "free speech zone", sounds somewhat ironic. I have recently seen the one in Boston next to the Fleet Center, the site of the Democratic National Convention. To a large extent I believe the description of it Dahlia Lithwick provides in her New York Times column to be correct.

The largely ignored "free-speech zone" at the Democratic convention in Boston last month was an affront to the spirit of the Constitution.

You may want to take a look at these pictures and see for yourself. Personally, I think these pictures show it in a bit too grim a light,- but not by much. I think Lithwick is also correct in her comments on some sections of the Patriot Act.

One section invented a broad new crime called "domestic terrorism" - punishing activities that "involve acts dangerous to human life" if a person's intent is to "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." If that sounds as if it's directed more toward effigy-burning, or Greenpeace activity, than international terror, it's because it is. International terror was already illegal.

My only comment to her above statement would be that all terrorism, whether originating overseas or within the US, had been illegal long before Ashcroft came up with an idea to write the Patriot Act. Furthermore, so has been murder, assault and destruction of property, as well as conspiracy to commit the above-mentioned crimes,- the crimes that pretty much inevitably follow every terror attack.

Specifically regarding the "free speech zones", I must admit to a complete mental failure to comprehend what security objective they accomplish. I tend to think wearing a button or a t-shirt with a certain verbiage on it has not yet stopped anybody from engaging in any sort of violence (unless you believe in amulets, that is). So it is beyond me why, given their prior knowledge of the practice of "free speech zones", an individual or a group planning an act of sabotage would not pose as supporters to get as close as they can to the group or person they seek to harm. And unless those who have instituted the practice come forth with a sensible explanation as to what security benefits it yields, I will continue to view that practice exclusively as that of intimidation, oppression and censorship.

Terror, Terror, Terror...

The warnings keep coming in. The enemy is at the gate,- or even way past the gate. Al Quaeda is seeking ways to terrorize Americans, the want to disrupt the US Presidential Election and drive Bush from office. While the former is likely true, the latter is questionable. As I have said before, George W Bush's chances of being re-elected are more likely to improve than to decrease in case of a major pre-Election terror strike since he has successfully build an image of himself as a war President, and that is the only part of his PR portfolio that appears solid.

In his Village Voice article James Ridgeway also presents another interesting possibility of what Al Quaeda may be up to at the moment:

Robert Killebrew, a retired army infantry colonel who often writes and speaks about defense and national security matters, predicted Sunday in The Washington Post that Al Qaeda will plan more attacks on the Madrid model, in which a terrorist act is hooked to a political event in order to accomplish maximum effect. And that while Al Qaeda is bashing Middle East and Western governments it doesn't like, it will also try to gain support of the street Muslims by entering politics and sooner or later putting its own people into high positions within different governments. "If, as I expect," writes Killebrew, "Al Qaeda makes the transition in the coming decade from a deadly, popular but rootless terrorist grouping to the sitting government of a number of countries, this heroic theme will inspire their governing institutions, including regular military and paramilitary forces and will become part of the pan-Arab, anti-crusader tradition."

If true, this may actually be good news of sorts. Any movement that transitions from a stateless outlaw group to being part of a government generally tends to become more restrained and responsible. And those who deal with it,- whether friends or enemies,- finally get an address to go to.

Overall, I think the Amercians should for the most part disregard these latest terror warnings and not let them affect their plans for the Election day, or any other day before or after. Those professionally involved in law enforcement and intelligence should of course try to do their job as best they can and try and thwart the terror threat if it is real. All the rest of us should treat that threat as a background noise, like the rumbling of a thunderstorm which may at any time result in a deadly tornado or a bolt of lightning,- but which we do not generally allow to stop our lives in their tracks.

And, yes, I believe they should vote as this is likely the most crucial election in a long time,- and in a long time to come. And those who think that Bush has a strong anti-terror record may want to check out alternative media websites such as this one and think once again whether that is indeed the case.

The Olga Document- The Debate Rages On

I have recently written about the so-called "Olga Document",- a letter signed by 103 Israelis in support of the Palestinian right of return. The following article by Ben-Dror Yemini offers what in my opinion amounts to a very interesting critique of the Olga Document.