Monday, May 31, 2010

Another side of the story

We only hear what they want us to hear. This is more like reality.



Charlie has sent you a video link
The following video link was sent to you by: Charlie


so100531pm5
Charlie says:

The Syrian ambassador and OIC rep.
stanford_charles@yahoo.com is sharing this video using RealPlayer®. To download Internet videos yourself, get your own copy of the FREE RealPlayer here.

Privacy Policy

Your email address was only used to deliver this message and for no other purpose.

© 2009 RealNetworks, Inc. RealPlayer is a registered trademark of RealNetworks, Inc.

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Derschowitz Anti-Semetic



THE ABSURD TIMES







Illustration:  Alan Derschowitz criticized Israel for not allowing Chomsky through.  He is therefore either 1)anti-semetic or 2) a self-hating Jew.  His reasons were that 1) it made Israel look rediculous and 2) Chomsky is an ineffective speaker.  Chomsky has published over 100 books and has an extremely demanding speaking schedule as he is much in demand.  Apparently, audiences are tired of effective speakers.




Apartheid Israel, Bunker Israel: Elvis Costello and Noam Chomsky

The repercussions of the brutal shooting-fish-in-a-barrel Gaza War, of the continued Israeli siege and boycott of the Gaza Strip, and of the vigorous colonization of the Palestinian West Bank by militant Israelis, continue to grow. The clear resistance of the far rightwing government of Binyamin Netanyahu to the two-state solution sought urgently by US president Barack Obama, in favor the massive and ongoing theft of Palestinian land and resources, has increasingly tarred Israel with the brush of Apartheid policies. The greatest danger facing Israel is no longer, as in the past, neighboring Arab armies, tank corps and missiles. It is a series of humiliations in the realm of cultural politics, most of them self-inflicted.
The arts community is often pioneers in symbolically protesting human rights violations that others find it inconvenient to mention. Artists are independent-minded and often financially independent, and so cannot easily be pressured.
Thus, singer Elvis Costello’s decision to join Carlos Santana, Sting, Gil Scott Heron, and Bono in boycotting Israel is likely a harbinger of things to come rather than being just an individual decision of conscience. Costello announced at his web page that:
‘ It is after considerable contemplation that I have lately arrived at the decision that I must withdraw from the two performances scheduled in Israel on the 30th of June and the 1st of July.
One lives in hope that music is more than mere noise, filling up idle time, whether intending to elate or lament.
Then there are occasions when merely having your name added to a concert schedule may be interpreted as a political act that resonates more than anything that might be sung and it may be assumed that one has no mind for the suffering of the innocent.
I must believe that the audience for the coming concerts would have contained many people who question the policies of their government on settlement and deplore conditions that visit intimidation, humiliation or much worse on Palestinian civilians in the name of national security. ‘
If some world cultural figures will not go to Israel anymore, increasingly irrational and Draconian Israeli restrictions on dissidents have excluded from Israel Jewish-American linguist and activist Noam Chomsky. Aljazeera English interviewed Chomsky on the episode:

acting like a totalitarian state.
Ironies abound here. The Likud government has by this action legitimated academic boycotts, a political technique that the British Left in particular has advocated be used against Israel itself. Those who argued against boycotting Israel earlier were able to say that it upheld academic freedom and exchange and so should not be isolated. Chomsky himself pointed out that Israel was in essence boycotting Bir Zeit University in preventing his appearance there.
(Another important point is that Israel was making this decision for occupied Palestinians. The latter have no voice in the matter, since they cannot vote for the Israeli government that rules them and decides whose lectures they may attend).
Another irony is that Chomsky could not get official confirmation that he would be permitted to enter the West Bank on a second try, and so he addressed his Bir Zeit audience by video from Amman, with Aljazeera helping out. In the region, Aljazeera has played an important role in giving a platform to a very wide range of political views, and now this Arab media outlet is more open than the supposedly democratic Israel.
The stories of Elvis Costello and Noam Chomsky illuminate two over-arching processes. Israel’s growing reputation as an Apartheid state will not result in major economic boycotts in the near term. But the step Costello took may become more and more common if the Palestinians continue to be deprived by Israel of their basic human rights. Chomsky’s story is one of self-imposed isolation on the part of Israeli officials, mired in the proto-fascist political philosophy of Vladimir Jabotinsky– the intellectual background of the Likud Party and of Netanyahu.
  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted in Israel/ Palestine, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post.

8 Responses to Apartheid Israel, Bunker Israel: Elvis Costello and Noam Chomsky



  1. Cide Hamete Benengeli says:
    Here is a revealing statement from Ehud Olmert in 2003:
    “More and more Palestinians are uninterested in a negotiated, two-state solution, because they want to change the essence of the conflict from an Algerian paradigm to a South African one. From a struggle against `occupation,’ in their parlance, to a struggle for one-man-one-vote. That is, of course, a much cleaner struggle, a much more popular struggle – and ultimately a much more powerful one.”
    Evidently, even the Israeli leadership agrees that they are running an Apartheid state.


  2. peter says:
    according to the BBC, Chomsky’s reaction to the Israelis’ statement that they didn’t like his writings, was “I asked them if they could find any government in the world that likes the things I say.”


  3. Kathleen Galt says:
    Prof Cole did you watch the
    Senate Foreign Relations Cmte. Hearing on START Treaty (May 18, 2010)
    Senate Foreign Relations Cmte. Hearing on START Treaty In April, Pres. Obama and Russian Pres. Medvedev signed a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) that will limit long-range nuclear weapons. Sec. of State Clinton, Defense Sec. Gates and Jt. Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mullen discussed the treaty at a Senate Foreign Relations Cmte hearing. This would replace the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty and the 2002 Moscow Treaty.
    Washington, DC : 2 hr. 16 min.
    Hillary “warmongering” Clinton claimed some things about Iran that I hope you dissect. She said that Iran IS enriching uranium above 20%. She was also saying that she had China and Russia on board for more sanctions.
    http://www.c-span.org/
    Have you noticed all of the energy commercials on the MSM? First they have a Iraqi Vet talking about how the US needs to get off the oil teat in the middle east, show US tanks being blown up by IED’s, then they show a shot of the Iranian President and call him a MADMAN and how our oil addiction puts money in his pocket. Several versions of these commercials but they are being played all over the MSM. MSNBC, CNN etc.
    New strategy to fuel aggression towards Iran


    • citizen says:
      Sorry to say this, but it appears that the American public is the most manipulated people in the free world. Actually it is worst than how it was in the USSR. In the USSR most people knew that what they saw and heard was part of government propaganda. As such they could filter out at least some of the propaganda. Here, in this country however, the manipulation and propaganda is pervasive and sophisticated that most people even do not realize who their opinion is being manipulated.
      A sad state of affairs in the land of the free and home of the brave.


      • super390 says:
        Every private-sector TV commercial you’ve ever seen is a meta-commercial for corporate rule. They have spent your entire life telling you that they have all the answers, that they are the ones who care about you, that they will make your life easy and protect you from all dangers.
        It all adds up.

  4. Pingback: May 19, 2010 « Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?


  5. citizen says:
    Good for Elvis Costello, Santana, Sting, Gil Scott Heron, and Bono!
    I too would like to boycott Israeli products on a personal basis. I am not sure there are a lot of consumer products being sold in this country that are from Israel. I assume most are industrial products and services sold to industries rather than to consumers. Does anyone know about organization or websites that inform consumers on this issue? Thanks.


  6. DBake says:
    Dr. Cole (or readers),
    Are there any books on the intellectual history of Likud and Jabotinsky’s political philosophy you would recommend? I had read about fascist influence before, but I don’t know the details.

Monday, May 17, 2010

CHOMSKY DETAINED -- ISRAEL BLOCKS ENTRY

THE ABSURD TIMES



This is courtesy of Democracy Now, currently on over 800 radio stations and available from both satelite providers.  It is accurate because there is absolutely no corporate influence whatsoever.  It is entirely funded by the communities in which it is seen and heard.

AMY GOODMAN: Noam Chomsky has been denied entry into the West Bank by Israel. The world-renowned linguist and political thinker was scheduled to deliver a lecture at Bir Zeit University near Ramallah and was scheduled to meet with Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. On Sunday afternoon, he was stopped by Israeli border guards at the Allenby Bridge border crossing from Jordan. After three hours of questioning, Chomsky’s passport was stamped with "Denied Entry." His daughter, Professor Aviva Chomsky—she teaches at Salem State College—was also denied entry.

No reason was initially given for the decision, but the Interior Ministry later told Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz that officials were now trying to get clearance from the Israel Defense Forces. Interior Ministry spokeswoman Sabine Haddad told Ha’aretz, quote, "We are trying to contact the military to clear things up, and if they have no objection, we see no reason why he should not be allowed in."

Professor Noam Chomsky joins us now from Amman, Jordan. He’s the internationally celebrated professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he has taught for over half a century. He’s author of over a hundred books on linguistics, mass media, American imperialism, and US foreign policy. His latest is called Hopes and Prospects.

We welcome you to Democracy Now!, Noam Chomsky.

NOAM CHOMSKY: How are you?

AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. Can you explain exactly what happened on Sunday?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, it’s very straightforward. The report that you just read from the Ministry is inaccurate. I have spoken—but the basic facts are as you described them. My daughter and I, along with two old friends, were going to Ramallah from Amman and were stopped at the border, waited several hours, several hours of interrogation, and finally my daughter and I were denied entry.

The reasons are quite straightforward. I’ve spoken at Bir Zeit University before, but in every prior occasion, it was a side trip, when I was visiting Israel and giving talks at Israeli universities. This time differs in one respect. I was—I had an invitation from Bir Zeit, and I accepted it gladly, as in many other cases, and I had no intention of going on to speak in Israel as well this time. That’s the only difference. So, essentially, what Israel is saying is that they insist on the right to determine who is allowed to just visit a Palestinian university at their invitation and talk.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the questions that they asked you? How long did they question you for, and how long were you held at the border?

NOAM CHOMSKY: The border, I guess, was about five hours or so. And the questioning, which was intermittent, was maybe two hours. The officer at the immigration post was essentially relaying the questions from the Ministry of Information. He was in telephone or computer contact with them.

AMY GOODMAN: Noam, say again, who was he in contact with, the border guard?

NOAM CHOMSKY: The Ministry of Information.

AVIVA CHOMSKY: Interior.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Ministry of Interior, sorry. Ministry of Interior.

AMY GOODMAN: And what was he going back and forth with the Ministry of Interior about?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, there were two questions, which kept repeating in various forms. One was that they don’t like the kinds of things I say about Israel. OK, as quoted on Al Jazeera, that puts them in the category of just about everyone else in the world, every other country. Furthermore, it can’t possibly have been the reason, since I’ve been invited by universities in Israel to give talks specifically about Israel, very critical ones, and the talks I was invited for here were primarily about the United States, US foreign and domestic policies.

The other question, which is the critical one and the one difference between this and other occasions, is that I was simply coming to visit Bir Zeit University and was not at the same time giving talks at Israeli universities, with the visit to Bir Zeit on the side, as has been the case previously. And they didn’t like that.

AMY GOODMAN: And why didn’t they like that?

NOAM CHOMSKY: They didn’t like that because I—well, I’m speculating, but I think the reason is clear. They don’t like the idea that a Palestinian university can be independent and pursue its own policies the same way that any other university in the world does. I mean, it’s almost unheard of, outside of totalitarian states, for a government to prevent someone from responding to an invitation at a university to give a talk.

AMY GOODMAN: At the risk of sounding like a border guard, Noam Chomsky, what were you planning to talk about at Bir Zeit University?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Two topics were announced. One was called "America and the World." It was about US foreign policy, including Middle East policies, as a special case. The other was "America at Home," and it was going to be a discussion of developments inside the United States, particularly in the last fifty years.

AMY GOODMAN: And in the first case, what was the speech? Could you elaborate on what you intended to say?

NOAM CHOMSKY: I was going to discuss—and will, in fact, by video conference discuss—some persistent themes in US international relations since the founding of the republic, but primarily in the past—since the Second World War, when the US became a major player on the world scene, and discuss how our policies have developed through the Cold War period, and since the Cold War period up to the present, including of course policies with regard to the crucial Middle East region, ever since it was recognized that oil was going to be a primary resource during World War I, but essentially after World War II, when the United States displaced Britain as the major actor in world affairs.

AMY GOODMAN: What is your assessment right now of the situation with Israel and Palestine? And were you going to meet with the Palestinian prime minister?

NOAM CHOMSKY: I did—I was going to meet with the Prime Minister. Unfortunately, I couldn’t. But his office called me here in Amman this morning, and we had a long discussion.

He is pursuing policies, which, in my view, are quite sensible, policies of essentially developing facts on the ground. It’s almost—I think it’s probably a conscious imitation of the early Zionist policies, establishing facts on the ground and hoping that the political forms that follow will be determined by them. And the policies sound to me like sensible and sound ones. The question, of course, is whether—the extent to which Israel and the United States, which is a determining factor—the extent to which they’ll permit them to be implemented. But if implemented, and if, of course, Israel and the United States would terminate their systematic effort to separate Gaza from the West Bank, which is quite illegal, if that continues, yes, it could turn into a viable Palestinian state.

AMY GOODMAN: Noam, you said that what I said at the beginning was not actually accurate: no reason was initially given for the decision to bar you, but the Interior Ministry later told the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz that officials are now trying to get clearance from the Israeli Defense Forces; an Interior Ministry spokeswoman said, "We are trying to contact the military to clear things up, and if they have no objection, we see no reason why he should not be allowed in." What isn’t true about that?

NOAM CHOMSKY: I have been—I have spoken in Bir Zeit a number of times. No one ever asked for clearance from the Israeli military. The one difference in this case is that, on those occasions, I was visiting Israel and giving talks at Israeli universities and meetings and so on, and went to Bir Zeit on a side trip, and in this case, I was going to Bir Zeit and not speaking at Israeli universities. And in fact, the interrogator, who was reading questions that were coming from the Ministry, repeatedly asked, "Well, why aren’t you also going to give talks in Israel?" That’s the one difference, and it has nothing to do with the IDF.

AMY GOODMAN: How do you know it has nothing to do with the military?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Because it was the—in either case, I was going to talk in the West Bank.

AMY GOODMAN: Mm-hmm.

NOAM CHOMSKY: That part was the same. The one part that was different in this case is that I was talking in the West Bank and not in Israel. And that has nothing to do with the IDF.

AMY GOODMAN: Did they seem to know that you were going to be coming, that you were going to be crossing the border? Or were they surprised? Could you determine that?

NOAM CHOMSKY: If they were surprised, it shows a high level of incompetence, since it was public and announced.

AMY GOODMAN: If Israel were to say you would be allowed in, would you go?

NOAM CHOMSKY: If they will say that I can just go in in a normal fashion. I don’t want their authorization. If they can say that I can go in in a normal fashion, as when I visit Israel or any other country, yes, I’ll go.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Noam Chomsky, who’s been—well, what exactly did they stamp your passport?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Let’s see. What did they stamp it? Actually, my daughter is getting it so I can see it. Just one second. It says, "Allenby Border Control," the date, two red lines across it, and then it says "Entry"—and the same in Hebrew. And then another stamp says, "Entry denied," where my curiosity is that the word "entry" is misspelled, but it’s [inaudible]—

AMY GOODMAN: And you say this was in constant consultation with the Ministry of the Interior.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Yeah, the interrogator, my impression was that he was sort of apologetic and just transmitting information he was receiving regularly. He was in direct contact with them. But he seemed [inaudible]—

AMY GOODMAN: Now, you said you are going to deliver this lecture, but by video conference?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Tomorrow, it’s set up by video conference from Amman, where I am now.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to ask you a question on Iran, this latest deal that has just been announced. I don’t know if you’ve been following the news as you have been there, but a deal on the whole issue of nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Iran has agreed to ship most of its enriched uranium to Turkey in a nuclear fuel swap deal that could ease the international standoff over Iran’s disputed nuclear program. In exchange, Iran will receive low-level nuclear fuel to run a medical reactor—the deal reached with the foreign ministers of Iran, Turkey and Brazil. And Iran said the swap will be under the supervision of the UN nuclear agency, the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency. What is your assessment of this?

NOAM CHOMSKY: If the reports are accurate, it’s hard to see why—on what grounds the United States would object. It’s basically US objections. But what’s significant about this are several things, first that it’s Iran, it’s Brazil and Turkey. Turkey is representative of the regional powers. Turkey, like the Arab League, has made it clear that it does not want sanctions. It wants a negotiation, a diplomatic settlement. Brazil is probably the most respected country in the—among the Non-Aligned countries, plays a very important role. In fact, that the two of them have outdone—and they happen to be on the Security Council, but that they’re openly calling for a peaceful diplomatic settlement and opposing the call to—the threat of any further actions, that’s significant.

Also significant is that this is, in a way, a side issue. I mean, there is a way to approach the whole issue of whatever threat there may be in the Middle East from nuclear weapons, and that’s to move towards a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the region. Now, back in 1995, the United States agreed to that. It was on the insistence of Egypt. This was the review conference, regular review conference, and Egypt and other Non-Aligned countries said that they would not continue with the Non-Proliferation Treaty, unless the West, meaning the United States, agreed to move towards a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the region, which would eliminate any threat there may be, or at least mitigate any threat there might be about nuclear weapons. And the US did formerly agree to that. Actually, the US is even more committed now than it was then, because when the US and Britain invaded Iraq, they did try to present a kind of a thin legal cover, as you recall. The claim was that Iraq was in violation of a Security Council resolution in 1991, calling on it to terminate its development of weapons of mass destruction. Well, we know what happened to the pretext.

But what’s important is that same resolution has a provision, an article, which commits the signers to establishing a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the Middle East. So the US and Britain have a special commitment to this beyond the general commitment of the nuclear review panel. Well, Egypt, which is now head of the Non-Aligned Movement, 118 countries, has pressed that very strongly in the last few weeks at meetings, preparatory meetings, at the review meetings, and the US has—in a position where it has formerly agreed, but it has evaded the agreement by saying clearly that no such resolution will apply to Israel and accepting the Israeli position that—explicitly, that while this might be a good idea, as Hillary Clinton put it, this is not the proper time, because first we have to have a comprehensive peace agreement in the Middle East. Well, you know, a comprehensive peace agreement is off indefinitely as long as the US and Israel reject the very broad international consensus on a two-state settlement. So that’s essentially saying, "Well, we’re not going to proceed with this." And if they’re not going to proceed with it, there can’t be a nuclear-weapons-free zone.

Those are much more central issues. And it’s also worth emphasizing that both the Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency have explicitly called upon Israel to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty and to open its facilities to inspection. And that happened last fall, and the Obama administration immediately informed Israel that they could disregard the international agency [inaudible] request. India, as well. The Security Council resolution would also have applied to India, but the Obama administration informed the Indians that they could ignore it. They’re developing nuclear weapons with indirect US assistance under an Anglo—an Indian-American treaty.

AMY GOODMAN: Noam, we have to break for sixty seconds, and I wanted to come back to this discussion. Noam Chomsky, professor at MIT, has been banned, along with his daughter, Professor Aviva Chomsky, from entering the West Bank, where he going to deliver two lectures at Bir Zeit University. He was barred on the Allenby Bridge border crossing from Jordan into the West Bank. This is Democracy Now! We’ll be back in a minute.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: Our guest is Noam Chomsky. He was supposed to be today in the West Bank. Instead, he’s in Amman. He and his daughter, Aviva Chomsky, were denied entry at the border coming from Jordan into the West Bank. He was going to be delivering two lectures. Noam Chomsky, professor at MIT, author of over a hundred books, world-renowned linguist and political thinker and activist.

Noam, I wanted to ask you about the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, tentatively announcing plans to discuss Israel’s nuclear weapons program for the first time ever. Israel, the only nation in the Middle East with nuclear weapons, but the country has never officially acknowledged that it has them. Talk about the significance of this.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Yeah, I’m afraid I’ll have to be very brief; there’s another interview coming. But it’s quite significant. The—it must have been last September or October, the IAEA passed a resolution calling on Israel to open its—to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty and to open its facilities, nuclear facilities, to international inspection. Now, the United States and Europe tried to block that resolution, but it passed anyway. And immediately afterwards, the Obama administration informed Israel that it could deny it.

This was not reported in the United States, as far as I know, in the press, with one exception, the Washington Times, in the second newspaper in Washington. Now that’s quite significant.

These are—if anyone is interested in nuclear nonproliferation, it’s very important to force—to compel countries to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty. There are three non-signers at the moment—India, Israel and Pakistan—all developing nuclear weapons with the assistance of the United States, and the US is protecting them from inspection.

It goes beyond this. There are nuclear-weapons-free zones in several parts of the world already, except that they’re not implemented fully, because the US won’t allow it. The most relevant one here is the African Union. It called for—it finally agreed on a nuclear-weapons-free zone, but that includes an island, the island of Diego Garcia, which the US uses for—first of all, for bombing—it’s one of the main bombing centers for the Middle East and Central Asia—but also for storing nuclear weapons and for nuclear submarines. And, in fact, it’s used for those purposes. It’s being beefed up by the Obama administration, as in new support systems for nuclear submarines. The US is now sending new—what are called bunker busters, huge bombs aimed at deep penetration. Of course, they’re aimed at Iran. They’ve just been sent to Diego Garcia. This is—these are all threats against Iran in violation of Security Council resolutions.

I’m afraid I’ll have to stop; I have another interview coming in two minutes.

AMY GOODMAN: OK. Well, thank you very much for joining us, Noam Chomsky, MIT professor, again, denied entry into the West Bank to give his lectures at Bir Zeit. But the lectures will be given by video conference beginning tomorrow. Thanks, Noam, for being with us.

Creative Commons License The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

Friday, May 07, 2010

Fellow Tapeworms


 

Erik Prince Says His Enemies Are al Qaeda, Taliban and 'Noisy Leftists'

Links:
[1] http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2010/05/erik_prince_defends_blackwater.html
[2] http://www.hollandsentinel.com/topstories/x289800529/Erik-Prince-talks-values-defends-Blackwater-at-Tulip-Time-lunch
[3] http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j_Fh4eUjH-X9o0Sf4fNfYnLofGuQD9FH07000
[4] http://www.thenation.com/blog/secret-erik-prince-tape-exposed
[5] http://griid.org/2010/05/05/erik-prince-gives-canned-speech-at-tulip-time-festival-in-holland/

Tuesday, May 04, 2010

The Real Aliens -- The United States of Blackwater

THE ABSURD TIMES






Illustration:  One version of the logo

I have some questions.  Jeremy Scahill is one great reporter, but he hasn't answered these:  Why is this neandrathal still being paid by our government?  Why is he able to order the military around?  They changed their name, but they are still the same organization.  Frankly, people like this scare me.


I mean, not so much by what he says, but by the fact that our government is hiring him.  It scares me that he actually believes what he is saying and that we have people in our government in a position to decide on these things and they go right on and hire this group.  Would you?  Well, obviously, since you are reading this, you are not in such a position.  Oh oh, wait a minute, if you are in such a position, what are you doing reading this?  You have some 'splaining to do. 



One correction:  Eric Prince says that these people have a 1200 AD mentality and crawled out of a sewer.  I know the Ancient Romans had a sewer system, but  where were the sewers in 1200 AD?

Anyway, obviously brought to you by Democracy Now:


SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Welcome to all of our listeners and viewers. Erik Prince doesn’t like being in the media spotlight. The reclusive owner of the private military firm known as Blackwater is scheduled to give the keynote address tomorrow at the Tulip Time Festival in his hometown of Holland, Michigan. True to form, Prince told the event’s organizers no news reporting could be done on his speech and they consented to the ban. But journalists and media associations in Michigan protested the move and on Monday, the organizers reversed their position and said the media would be allowed to attend with one caveat: no video or audio recording devices are allowed inside. Despite Prince’s attempts to shield his speeches from public scrutiny, investigative journalist and DEMOCRACY NOW! correspondent Jeremy Scahill obtained a rare audio recording of a recent, private speech delivered by Prince to a friendly audience in January. The speech, which Prince attempted to keep from public consumption provides a stunning glimpse into his views and future plans and reveals details of previously undisclosed activities of Blackwater. Jeremy’s article on the recording of Erik Prince’s speech was published on his new blog for TheNation.com.

AMY GOODMAN: The audio the speech has never before been broadcast. Today, we’ll air excerpts in a DEMOCRACY NOW! exclusive. But first, Jeremy Scahill joins us here in our DEMOCRACY NOW! studio. He is an award winning independent journalist, Puffin Foundation writing fellow at The Nation Institute, and the author of the international bestseller “Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army.” Jeremy is also scheduled to speak tomorrow in Holland, Michigan, just hours after Erik Prince, at a separate event organized by the Interfaith Congregation of Holland. Jeremy Scahill, welcome to DEMOCRACY NOW!.

JEREMY SCHAHILL: Nice to be here.

AMY GOODMAN: So, talk about this tape. How’d you get it?

JEREMY SCHAHILL: Well, Erik Prince has been in the media at times because he has had to respond when its forces killed 17 innocent Iraqis in Nisour Square, he made the rounds on CNN and 60 Minutes and other places. And he generally goes into a very controlled environment. He doesn’t often give speeches, he doesn’t lecture on the university circuit, and when he does give talks, he makes it very clear to the event organizers that there are to be no recording devices and journalists are not allowed. And so I had contact with someone who had the opportunity to go to this private event that was hosted by the Young Presidents Organization and Erik Prince was giving a speech in front of all these entrepreneurs. It was a private gathering. And they had ROTC cadets from the University of Michigan- the commanders of ROTC there. And in fact, at one point during his speech, Erik Prince stops after he had been bashing some NATO countries and saying that some of the U.S. allies in Afghanistan should pack up their bags and get out of the country, he singled-out about Canada as a positive example of a force that was doing a good job in Afghanistan, he stopped and he said, “I just want to make it clear everything I’m saying here is off the record in case any journalists slipped into the room. Let’s remember this is a man whose company does ninety percent of its business with the federal government. Taxpayers fund this man’s corporation. We have a right to know what he’s up to. We have a right to know, when you can’t get documents on Blackwater, what the owner of this company is saying. So I revealed the details of this tape in the interest of the first amendment freedom of the press, but also because I believe the American people have a right. So someone contacted me, said they weren’t going to be going to this and I asked that individual, "Do you think you could record it?” And so what happened was that this person went into the event and clandestinely recorded Erik Prince speaking. And what he said was really incredible.

There are a number of key points to focus on. One is that Erik Prince said that the United States should send armed mercenaries, he doesn’t use the term, but that’s what they are, armed mercenaries, into Somalia, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Nigeria. With the exception of Nigeria, he talked about Yemen and Somalia and Saudi Arabia facing Iranian threats and the Iranians were, as he put it, at the dead center of badness in the world. And he said that by sending in private contractors, armed contractors, instead of the military, you solve the political problems of sending a large U.S. force, and said that the private sector can do this in a much smaller footprint way and it also would be politically expedient because there would essentially be plausible deniability on the part of the government. In the case of Nigeria, of course we’ve seen an increase in resistance movements and indigenous movements that are protesting against multinational oil corporations polluting, doing what they perceive to be stealing of Nigeria’s most valuable resources, oil-rich African nation. Erik Prince talked about these Nigerian groups as stealing oil from the multi-national oil corporations and suggested without providing any evidence whatsoever that revenue from this theft, by Nigerian groups, of the oil was being used to fund terrorist operations. I talked to some military sources that I have that have extensive experience with U.S. Special Forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, Pakistan, and what they found most disturbing about what Prince said was that Prince told a story of July 2009 where his narcotics interdiction unit, a 200-person strike force in Afghanistan that I had never heard of this force before, they actually were operating near the Pakistan border, they came across with a said was a massive hashish and heroin operation and Blackwater forces actually called-in air strikes that then came in and destroyed this facility. The idea that a private company is individually calling-in air strikes raises serious questions about the chain of command issue in Afghanistan. How is it that a private force is able to simply can get on the phone and within moments call-in air strikes that take out anything?

The other story that disturbs military folks that I’ve talked to is that Erik Prince tells a story of how his Blackwater forces resupply a U.S. military unit with ammunition when they’re running low. And he says that the reason that Blackwater did it is because there was too much lawyering involved with the official military doing it. So Blackwater was contacted he said, by this military unit, and they brought in the resupply, the ammunition. Again, chain of command issues. How is it that Blackwater is able to just unilaterally work with individual units fo the U.S. military? Or, in the case of the so-called drug bust that they’re actually calling-in air strikes. Prince, Amy, also said that Blackwater took down Muntadhar al-Zaidi, the Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes the President Bush and Prince called the Secret Service “flatfooted.” And said that he’s going to be publishing a book in the fall, Erik Prince is. It’s going to be like, you know, “Chicken Soup for the Mercenary Soul.” And he said he’s going to publish a photo of the Blackwater guy taking down the man that Prince called the “Iraqi shoe bomber.” I’ve never heard an allegation there was a bomb there but- when Erik Prince is speaking in front of the media, you get one version of the story. When he’s talking in front of business leaders and the military, you hear a very different side of things and I think it’s very revealing.

The Pentagon should be asking serious questions right now of Erik Prince about what exactly his forces are doing in Afghanistan. He also said he controls four forward operating bases inside of Afghanistan and including one at the base of the mountains of Tora Bora, which is the closest U.S. base and it’s operated, in Erik Prince’s terms, by Blackwater, to the Pakistan border. But he described having these in different strategic locations around Afghanistan. This was not a speech by a man who seems like he’s concerned that he’s going out of business anytime soon. He seems to be doing quite well and very much of the center of things in Afghanistan.

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Well, Jeremy we want to go to one of those clips. This has never before been broadcast. It’s difficult to hear. We have the transcript up for our television viewers. But for our radio audience, why don’t you set up this clip. This is about the Geneva Conventions.

JEREMY SCHAHILL: Right, this was recorded by someone who had to do it secretly, so it was recorded from a seat in the audience with the room ambiance, so it’s a bit hard to make out. But what Erik Prince, he says that people have come up to him and said, aren’t you concerned when you operate in the likes of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan–interesting because Blackwater has denied it works in Pakistan, but here’s Erik Prince mentioning his work in Pakistan–aren’t you concerned when you work in these places you don’t have protection under the Geneva Convention? You know, there’s a debate about this, that they could be classified as ‘unlawful combatants’ because they’re essentially mercenaries, it’s arguable under international law definitions. And Prince said, absolutely not because the people that we’re fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are ‘barbarians who crawled out of the sewer.’ He said that they have a 1200 AD mentality. And that they don’t know where Geneva is, let alone there was a convention there. It’s interesting that he misuses the term convention there because it wasn’t a convention in the sense of a meeting, but a convention in the sense of an international agreement that was brokered that governs now, international affairs. So here’s Erik Prince expressing disdain over the debate about the status of his forces in the Geneva Conventions.

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: So let’s go to that clip. Listen carefully. This is Eric Prince speaking in January. Never before been broadcast.

      ERIK PRINCE: They are there to kill us. They don’t understand- you know, people ask me that all the time, ’Aren’t you concerned that you folks aren’t covered under the Geneva Convention in dealing in the likes of Iraq or Afghanistan or Pakistan?’ And I say, ‘Absolutely not,’ because these people, they crawled out of the sewer and they have a 1200 AD mentality. They’re barbarians. They don’t even know where Geneva is, let alone that there was a convention there. [LAUGHTER]


SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: That was Erik Prince. Again, it was difficult to understand, you can go to our website at democracynow.org for a transcript, it’s up on the screen, of what he’s saying. We’re going to another clip right now, Jeremy. This is him talking about Yemen, about Saudi Arabia, about the Middle East, and specifically about the influence he thinks of Iran.

JEREMY SCHAHILL: Yeah, as he put it, as Erik Prince put it, as I said, you know Iran is of the dead center of badness in the world. And he painted this picture where Iran is fomenting a Shi’ite revolt in the region and he talked about how they’re stirring-up this revolt in Yemen and doing cross-border raids into Saudi Arabia. He talked about the Iranian influence in Somalia and other countries and talked about the Iranians providing support for improvised explosive devices in Iraq and he said, that in the case of Yemen and Saudi Arabia an Somalia, that the Iranians have had a very sinister hand in these places. So, Erik Prince proposed that the U.S. send in forces, small forces of U.S. mercenaries because he said that you’re not going to solve the problem by putting a lot of uniformed soldiers in these countries. It’s way too politically sensitive, he said. The private sector can operate there with a very, very, very small, very light footprint.

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Again, let’s go to that tape. This is Erik Prince.

      ERIK PRINCE: So, the Iranians are stirring it up in Yemen first, they’re trying to stir it up in the oil fields of Saudi Arabia. The Iranians have had a very, very big hand in Iraq certainly and there’s a lot of evidence that they’re supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan as well. We’ve seen more and more sophisticated IEDs, the Improvised Explosive Devices, that are blowing up our troops on the road, even some evidence of surface-to-air missiles being moved in. So the Iranians have a very sinister hand in these places. You’re not going to solve it by putting a lot of uniformed soldiers in all these countries. It’s way too politically sensitive. The private sector can operate there with a very, very, very small, very light footprint.


SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Again, that was Erik Prince speaking in January. Difficult to hear. Jeremy, your article really goes through all of what he says throughout this speech. Talk about- well, go ahead.

AMY GOODMAN: And interestingly, he’s speaking at the University of Michigan where President Obama just gave the commencement address yesterday.

JEREMY SCHAHILL: Right, exactly and where he will be speaking on Wednesday is Holland, Michigan is at the DeVos Fieldhouse which is owned by the DeVos family, the owners of the Orlando Magic basketball team. The biggest bank rollers of the rise of the radical religious right. His sister, Betsy, is married to Dick DeVos, the heir to that fortune. And it’s interesting because he almost always speaks of some kind of a venue there that is controlled by either his family or his extended family. The last part of what Prince said in that clip, though, is very significant. He talked about the issue of the very small footprint. That is in his line for a long time. That the U.S. government has very expensive military operations and that if you take a high-end team of special forces operators like those that work for Blackwater, former SEALS, Delta Force, JSOC guys, joint special operations command guys, that you can send in less of them and that they can inflict much more damage. So he’s suggesting this will be something that can be done right now, send them into these countries to take out ‘the bad guys,’ as he called it, he constantly uses that term, ‘the bad guys.’

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: And other things that Prince talks about, about training Afghan forces and also about Hurricane Katrina and Blackwater’s presence there in the aftermath.

JEREMY SCHAHILL: Right, he said that Blackwater trains somewhere in the ballpark of 1,500 Afghans every six weeks. Blackwater is currently competing for this massive training contract to train the Afghan police and there are some other companies doing it, too, but Blackwater right now, has a large part of the market cornered, and so they spend a lot of time with these Afghan forces. But he also sort of spoke disparagingly in a way that sort of was cultural imperialism about Afghans. He said that the Afghans that come to us, you know, they’ve never been a part of something professional and something that works and he said that, you know, they don’t know how to use toilets- and the first thing we have to do is teach them intro to toilet use. He also talks about women that are working with Blackwater, and he says, you know, they come to work in their burkas and then they put on their cammies, their camouflage, and he said, you know, they really like the baton work and they get carried away with the handcuffs, wanting to handcuff men all the time. He was sort of speaking disparagingly of them. And the at the same time turns around and says, ‘but in six weeks we turn these individuals into what U.S. generals have told me is the most effective fighting force in Afghanistan. You know, I wonder what General McChrystal thinks about that, given his Army Ranger history, that Afghans who spend six weeks with Eric Prince’s force are somehow the most effective fighting force in Afghanistan. And then finally, Sharif, as you mentioned, he- Erik Prince brags that Blackwater saved 128 people during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. I was down there and- we were all down there, Amy, and we saw the Blackwater guys, we talked to some of them. They said that they were there to confront criminals and stop looters. But what Prince says that I think would be offensive to, Louisiana, is he says that Blackwater forces beat the Louisiana National Guard to the scene of the hurricane zone. He says, we jumped from five states over and beat the Louisiana National Guard. He doesn’t mention that thirty-five to forty percent of the Louisiana National Guard was deployed in Iraq along with massive amounts of equipment that could of been used in recovery operations, that could have been used in humanitarian operations there. So to say Blackwater beat the Louisiana National Guard without mentioning that part of the reason there wasn’t an effective Louisiana National Guard response was because so many of them were in Iraq and deployed abroad. And they expressed anger. I remember seeing some of them coming back into Louisiana livid with President Bush, saying, ‘He cares more about Iraq than he does about Louisiana and we should have been here.’ And so, he uses that then to launch off, Amy, and say he participated, Prince is a SEAL, in the invasion, he called it, of Haiti in 1994. And then he said that he had wanted to create a humanitarian barge like this massive vessel that could respond to natural disasters around the world, that could be supported by large pharmaceutical companies and Archer Daniels Midland, but that because of political attacks from the Left, because of his tens of millions of dollars in legal bills, he had to cancel it. And he says, you know, ‘a ship like that sure could come in handy right now in Haiti as it deals with the earthquake.

AMY GOODMAN: He also talked about the CIA bombing in Khost.

JEREMY SCHAHILL: Yeah. he did although he didn’t mention the fact that Blackwater was guarding the CIA individuals that were blown up that day. You remember there was a Jordanian double agent that managed to penetrate Forward Operating Base Chapman. He killed eight CIA personnel including two Blackwater operatives. I have learned from a very well-informed intelligence source within the U.S. government that the Blackwater men were doing security that day. So, in a way, you could say Blackwater operatives failed to protect the CIA individuals that were there that day. But Prince talked about it being a necessary cost of doing business and that’s when he segued into his disdain for the Geneva Convention, was when he started saying that the people we’re fighting are barbarians that crawled out of the sewer, but he doesn’t mention that Blackwater had personnel killed there. He also compares themselves to Valerie Plame and says that he was a victim of ‘outing’ and that the government depends on Americans who are not working officially with the government, but are contractors, for the entire intelligence apparatus. And it was unprecedented for someone like him, running a sensitive program which was essentially a CIA assassination program, to be outed publicly and compared themselves to Valerie Plame.

AMY GOODMAN: Jeremy, you’re going to Holland, Michigan tomorrow. You’re going to be speaking hours after Erik Prince.

JEREMY SCHAHILL: Right, I mean, an interfaith congregation in Holland, Michigan, when they learned that Erik Prince was going to be speaking, initially it was going to be completely closed-off to any public scrutiny- I mean, what’s the difference between closing of the public and not allowing journalists to record it in audio or video? And they said, you know, we as residents of the city are offended that this man is going to be speaking at what is supposed to be a sort of cultural celebration of the heritage of people there and that they’re going to shut it down, essentially, from any kind of coverage. So we want someone to come in and give the other side of the story, because the organizers of the festival said that Prince was going to be talking about the value-based lessons of his childhood. Well, what about the values that Erik Prince’s forces have shown in Iraq when they’ve shot innocent civilians, and stolen childhoods, like Ali Kinani, the 9-year-old boy who was the youngest victim of Blackwater at Nisour Square? We reported on that at DEMOCRACY NOW!. My intent is to go there and tell the other side of the story, the one that Erik Prince certainly won’t be discussing inside the DeVos Fieldhouse.

AMY GOODMAN: And we will link to that story that you did tell about Ali Kinani at democracynow.org. Jeremy, thanks so much for being with us. Jeremy Scahill, independent journalist, DEMOCRACY NOW! correspondant, author of “Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army.” He’s starting a new blog at TheNation.com where he writes about his acquiring this tape of the speech of Erik Prince, the founder of Blackwater. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. Back in a minute.

Printer-friendly version

Email to a friend

Creative Commons License The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to "democracynow.org". Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.