Search Blog Posts

Showing posts with label USS Liberty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label USS Liberty. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 4, 2015

Jews against USS Liberty Memorial Library

liberty-ceremony-june-2008-photo-001[1]
This is one of the least known stories of the 2% Jewish minority’s unbreakable grip over the American nation of 305 million people. This relates to the privately-funded memorial library established in the city of Grafton near Milwaukee twenty years after the June 1967 Israeli attack on USS Liberty ordered by one-eyed Israeli Gen. Moshe Dayan. As was and still is required in the Land Of The Free, the Israeli connection was played down with the focus almost exclusively on commemorating those who had served and suffered for their motherland at the hands of Israeli Jews.

This is a story of a slave nation which has constructed Holocaust Museums and Memorials in almost every major city in the country in the memory of Jews who died in far-away European countries during the early 1940s – but is allergic to the idea of building even a single Museum in the memory of mass-killing of tens of millions of American Natives or African slaves by the European settlers.

The former commanding officer of the USS Liberty, Captain William McGonagle, generously donated to the Gift Fund during a memorial service for crew members in June 1989. His donation and a grant co-funded by the Andrew Mellon Foundation and the Wisconsin Humanities Committee enabled the library to offer The Library of America, a 60-volume set of writings of major American authors.

Books on the Middle East also are available from all points of view, in keeping with the remark by Joseph Joubert, “It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.”

A debate raged while the library was under construction over the suggestion by two major donors to the project to name the library in honor of the USS Liberty. The proposal set off attempts, mostly by residents of nearby Milwaukee, to induce residents to change the name. These included unrelenting critical media coverage, picketing during the ground-breaking ceremony, refusal by the school board to permit the high school band to participate, and the refusal of some area clergy and many invited military and federal government officials to attend the village’s memorial service for the crew.

The project trustees wanted to name the library after Theodore and Benjamin Grob, two Swiss-born Jewish industrialists who donated $250,000 towards the project. But they rejected the offer saying: “Name it the USS Liberty Memorial Library in honor of the 34 Americans who died when Israel attacked the USS Liberty in 1967.”

The powerful Jewish lobby Anti-Defamation League in Chicago describes the Liberty Lobby-whose name has no connection to the ship or the USS Liberty Veterans Association – as “the best-financed, most active anti-Semitic organization in America.”

Howard Schoenfeld, president of Milwaukee`s Jewish Council, said the Liberty Lobby’s aim in keeping the issue before the public is “to be divisive and damaging to the US-Israeli relationship.” He denounced the effort as a “particularly pernicious attempt to take a tragic event and wrap anti-Semitism in the American flag.”

A $83,000 federal donation was withdrawn, an invitation to the White House to send a representative was ignored (as was a personal invitation to GHW Bush), the local high school refused to provide a band for the opening ceremony, denouncing the organisers as Nazis, while the Commander of a nearby Naval Training Centre was ordered not to attend by Naval brass.

“But they will never give up,” warned a war-weary of the Golda Meir conflict (renaming of the library at the Wisconsin University in Milwaukee after the Arab-hating Zionist prime minister). “A year or five years or ten years from now, they will be back to try to change the name. Sooner or later they will win. And if Grafton is not careful they will probably change it to something like Menachem Begin or Ariel Sharon.”

via rehmatsworld

Tuesday, November 11, 2014

Netanyahu Is a National Security Risk - and Washington Knows It by Adil E. Shamoo

If not a Netanyahu, then who? 

It’ll be another creation from the Zionist family tree, just as the Bushes grew into a Clinton and Obama. Our own congressional traitors can partner-up with anyone providing they grease their palms and elevate their prestige whether they be Republican neocons or on AIPAC payroll. Yes, indeed, while deckhand sailors may swab the deck of the present swill, the same officers navigating our ship of state will remain on the bridge.
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
An anonymous U.S. official caused a dustup when he called the Israeli prime minister "chickenshit." Others might have said worse


Adil E. Shamoo and Peter Certo, November 11, 2014 


<![if !vml]><![endif]>Last month, an anonymous US official stirred a tempest in a teapot when he called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “a chickenshit” in comments to the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg. The insinuation was that while Netanyahu will happily rile up his right-wing base on issues related to Palestine or Iran, he lacks the political courage to take meaningful steps to resolve either conflict.

State Department officials scurried to disavow themselves of the remark. But the incident revealed an increasingly common conclusion in Washington: Netanyahu’s foot-dragging on Middle East peace is not only frustrating for the United States – it’s dangerous.

Once a taboo subject in Washington, the value of the U.S.-Israeli alliance has increasingly come under scrutiny among even leading members of the foreign policy establishment.

As Anthony Cordesman – a Mideast expert at the center-right Center for Strategic and International Studies – observed, “It is time Israel realized that it has obligations to the United States, as well as the United States to Israel, and that it become far more careful about the extent to which it test the limits of US patience and exploits the support of American Jews.”

General David Petraeus, back when he was the head of the US Central Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict “foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of US favoritism for Israel.” Even President Obama has listed the conflict as a factor in US wars in the Middle East that are “costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure.”

These comments by leading American figures were made four years ago – well before the Obama administration had had its biggest dustups with Netanyahu’s government. Two Gaza wars and another round of failed peace talks later, nothing has changed except Israel’s increasing willingness to flout international law – as it did in its massive assault on Gaza earlier this year, which killed some 1,500 civilians.

Now, even US Secretary of State John Kerry – a pro-Israel stalwart – admits, to the chagrin of Israeli officials, that the lack of progress in peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians is feeding support for the Islamic State. “There wasn’t a leader I met with in the region,” Kerry said of his efforts to cobble together an anti-Islamic State coalition, “who didn’t raise with me spontaneously the need to try to get peace between Israel and the Palestinians, because it was a cause of recruitment and of street anger and agitation.”

One would think that such complaints from a key ally and patron would elicit some soul-searching in the Israeli government. Yet instead of charting a new course in his speech at the United Nations last September, Netanyahu fell back on an old, lazy recipe of demonization, equating Hamas with the Islamic State and the Islamic State with Iran. And he continued oft-used delaying tactics, inviting the current coalition of Arab countries fighting the Islamic State to draft a new peace proposal for Israel and the Palestinians – despite his longstanding rejection of the Arab Peace Initiative drafted over 10 years ago by many of those same countries. Officials in the Obama administration were reportedly “unconvinced” that Netanyahu’s proposal was sincere, given his lack of interest in direct talks with the Palestinians themselves.

In addition, just days before an October meeting with President Obama, Israel announced plans to construct 2,610 new housing units in East Jerusalem in violation of existing agreements. In a rare public rebuke, Obama spokesman Josh Earnest said that the new settlements will alienate Israel’s “closest allies” – presumably including Washington – and “call into question Israel’s ultimate commitment to a peaceful negotiated settlement with the Palestinians.”

Uncowed, Netanyahu dismissed the criticism, describing the US rejection of the new settlements as “against American values” and “anti-peace.” When an Israeli prime minister describes longstanding US strategic interests – in this case, conditions that would enable the creation of a viable Palestinian state and a just resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – as “un-American,” it’s a clear indication that the United States cannot continue its current course of appeasing Israel’s every demand.

That’s a conclusion increasingly shared by Israel’s longtime allies in Europe. Sweden’s new government recently indicated that it will recognize Palestine as a state. The UK parliament followed up with a symbolic recognition vote of its own, and more European countries may soon do the same.

Groups in the United States and in Europe, meanwhile, have worked with Palestinian activists to organize a boycott of Israeli settlement products and academic institutions. Indeed, US civil society – including many Jewish organizations – is now leaps and bounds ahead of the US government when it comes to rethinking the U.S.-Israel relationship.

Nonetheless, Netanyahu now looks poised to mobilize his supporters in the US Congress to vote against any nuclear agreement between Washington and Tehran.

Yet even as official Washington simmers with frustration at Netanyahu’s simultaneous demands for US support and disregard for US interests, officials rushed to put out the fire started by the anonymous “chickenshit” quip. As Foreign Policy’s Steve Walt put it, if Washington pretends that the “‘special relationship’ is hunky-dory, even when it is obvious to even casual observers that it is not,” then “Netanyahu’s not chickenshit – the White House is.”

Adil E. Shamoo is professor at University of Maryland and an associate fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies. He is a senior analyst for Foreign Policy In Focus Foreign Policy in Focus, and the author of Equal Worth – When Humanity Will Have Peace. Peter Certo is the editor of Foreign Policy In Focus. He can be reached at ashamoo@som.umaryland.edu.
via AntiWar

Thursday, November 6, 2014

Outrage as ICC Drops Case Against Israel for Deadly Attack On Humanitarian Flotilla

Prosecutors announce Thursday they will not pursue investigation or charges despite acknowledging Israel likely committed war crimes

The Mavi Marmara. (Photo: Free Gaza Movement/flickr/cc)
The Mavi Marmara. (Photo: Free Gaza Movement/flickr/cc)

The International Criminal Court is being accused of "defying justice" following Thursday's announcement that prosecutors will not further investigate or press charges against Israel for its 2010 deadly assault on a Gaza-bound flotilla bearing humanitarian aid from Turkey.

The ruling came despite the court's acknowledgement that Israel likely committed war crimes.

ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda stated Thursday that "there is a reasonable basis to believe" that Israel committed "war crimes" in its attack on the Mavi Marmara vessel, echoing the findings of a 61-page report by ICC prosecutors. But Bensouda went on to state that the potential case or cases arising from such an investigation "would not be of 'sufficient gravity' to justify further action by the ICC."

"In the final analysis, I have, therefore, concluded that the legal requirements under the Rome Statute to open an investigation have not been met and I am announcing that the preliminary examination has been closed," Besouda decided.

The Center for Constitutional Rights blasted the court's decision: "It is outrageous that the ICC is refusing to prosecute Israeli officials despite acknowledging that there's a reasonable basis to believe that war crimes were committed. For the court to say the case 'would not be of sufficient gravity' to justify further action when the Israeli Defense Force attacked international vessels in international waters, killed nine people and seriously injured many more, defies any reasonable understanding of justice and international law."

"Calling it a war crime is encouraging, but there is a factor of disappointment that they will not take this investigation further," Ehab Lotayef of the Freedom Flotilla Coalition told Common Dreams. "Israel commits war crimes against unarmed civilians in many incidents, whether inside occupied territories in Gaza or the West Bank, whether against internationals or locals."

Turkish lawyer Ramazan Ariturk, who is representing Comoros in the case, pledged that he will continue to pursue the case. "This is a moral struggle that we're pursuing by ourselves. It's a legal struggle, a struggle in the name of humanity. This struggle isn't over," he told reporters in Istanbul. "We will object to a higher court at the International Criminal Court and we believe without a doubt that we will prevail."

The ICC's ruling is the result of a preliminary investigation launched by Bensouda last year after the African state of Comoros, an ICC member, filed a complaint to the court. Israel and Turkey are not members of the court, and Turkey is separately pursuing legal action against Israeli military officers behind the attack.

Israeli naval commandos stormed the Mavi Marmara on the May 31, 2010, immediately killing nine people and wounding over 50, with one person later dying from the wounds sustained. Eighteen-year-old U.S. citizen Furkan DoÄŸan was filming the raid when he was shot several times, including in the face at point-blank range, resulting in his death.

In the aftermath of the attack, Israel faced international criticism and protest, including demands from the Turkish government for a formal apology, which Israel has repeatedly refused.

The Mavi Marmara was one of six ships in 2010, organized by an international coalition of campaigners for Palestinian rights, blocked and raided by Israel while attempting to break the siege of Gaza. For the past six years, solidarity ships have sought to sail to Gaza from around the world, but since 2008, none have reached their destination. Following Israel's latest seven-week attack on Gaza, civil society groups from around the world announced in August they will sail another "freedom flotilla" to break the siege, but did not publicly disclose a location or date.

Thursday, October 16, 2014

US Govt Cover-up of Israeli False Flag Attack on US Navy Ship, 1967

USS Liberty after being attacked by Israel Air Force June 8, 1967 (file photo) - I was stationed in Turkey at the time with the USCG and I assure you the Turks, being Moslem,  were very displeased (understandably so) with us! [for the US response to Israel's unprovoked attack on our Navy ship, go here]
Posted By Justin Raimondo On January 15, 2012

Will Israel succeed in dragging us into war with Iran?

If not, it won’t be for lack of trying. Their influential lobby in the US has been agitating for a US strike since the last year of the Bush presidency, when they almost succeeded in pulling it off: fortunately for us, Bush demurred, perhaps because he didn’t want his legacy to be two unwinnable and disastrous wars instead of just one.

Israel was to be the spearhead, with the US providing back up support, as the Guardian reported at the time:

“Israel gave serious thought this spring to launching a military strike on Iran’s nuclear sites but was told by President George W Bush that he would not support it and did not expect to revise that view for the rest of his presidency, senior European diplomatic sources have told the Guardian.”
 
Deterred from firing the first shots of World War III, the Israelis didn’t give up. Instead, they turned to other less direct means to achieve their goal. As Mark Perry reports on foreignpolicy.com:

“Buried deep in the archives of America’s intelligence services are a series of memos, written during the last years of President George W. Bush’s administration, that describe how Israeli Mossad officers recruited operatives belonging to the terrorist group Jundallah by passing themselves off as American agents. According to two U.S. intelligence officials, the Israelis, flush with American dollars and toting U.S. passports, posed as CIA officers in recruiting Jundallah operatives – what is commonly referred to as a ‘false flag’ operation.”
You bet those memos are buried deep – lest Americans discover that their faithful “allies” are trying to implicate them in war crimes.

Jundallah is a terrorist organization, Sunni-oriented and linked to al-Qaeda, that has murdered Iranian civilians in bombings and other attacks within Iran: their ostensible goal is to “liberate” Iranian (and Pakistani) Baluchistan. According to the memos, the Israelis recruited these terrorists right out in the open in London, where Mossad operatives – posing as CIA officers – met with Jundallah officials. “It’s amazing what the Israelis thought they could get away with,” Perry quotes one intelligence officer as saying. “They apparently didn’t give a damn what we thought.”

Of course not – and why should they? After all, we’ve given them a pass every time: when Jonathan Pollard stole what US officials described as the intelligence community’s “crown jewels” and passed them off to the Russians; when they stole our trade and military secrets and passed them off to China: when they were tracking the 9/11 conspirators and didn’t tell us what Mohammed Atta and his crew were up to. They took our “foreign aid” with one hand, and stabbed us in the back with the other.

What did we do about it, and what were the consequences for the Israelis?

The answer is: nothing, and none: nor has the story changed much this time around. Perry reports:

“A senior administration official vowed to ‘take the gloves off’ with Israel… but the United States did nothing – a result that the officer attributed to ‘political and bureaucratic inertia.’”

“’In the end,’ the officer noted, ‘it was just easier to do nothing than to, you know, rock the boat.’ Even so, at least for a short time, this same officer noted, the Mossad operation sparked a divisive debate among Bush’s national security team, pitting those who wondered ‘just whose side these guys [in Israel] are on’ against those who argued that ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend.’”
 
Oh well, I suppose you could call the cancellation of those planned joint US-Israeli military exercises more than nothing. Although Washington is claiming the cancellation is due to a desire to dial down tensions in the region, that didn’t stop them from ordering their warships to the Persian Gulf. In any case, the cancellation of “Austere Challenge 12” will hardly stop the Israelis from pursuing their plan to provoke the Iranians into attacking US facilities and/or personnel in the region. After all, since there are never any significant consequences attendant on their bad behavior, what have they got to lose?

The Americans don’t dare come out in public and take Tel Aviv to task: the powerful Israel lobby would have the President’s scalp, and Congress – aptly characterized as “Israeli-occupied territory” by the politically incorrect Pat Buchanan – would probably pass a resolution condemning their own President if Obama dared step out of line. And then there is all that campaign money the Democrats hope to scarf up this worrisome election season: taking the Israelis out to the wood shed would enrage the big money-bags who make unconditional support for Israel the price of their support.

Why should the Israelis care that their actions put US personnel in jeopardy, inviting attacks in kind from Tehran? Iranian attacks on US military personnel stationed in Iraq could easily inflict thousands of casualties, and this is especially true now that the US footprint is considerably reduced – but that would be the Americans’ problem. The Israelis, for their part, had the perfect “false flag” operation going: neither the Iranians nor top Jundallah cadre knew where the support was really coming from.

Jundallah’s leader, Abdolmalek Rigi,was captured by the Iranians and executed in the summer of 2010: before he was offed, however, he did an interview with Iranian media in the course of which he recalled a 2007 meeting in Morocco with a group of individuals who were supposed to be “NATO officials: “When we thought about it,” said Rigi, “we came to the conclusion that they are either Americans acting under NATO cover or Israelis.”

Rigi was just another pawn in the game as far as Israelis are concerned: they aren’t too particular about the types of unwitting allies they recruit. Rigi personally murdered his brother-in-law for disobeying orders, cutting his head off while Dan Rather’s cameras rolled.

Kidnappings are a Jundallah favorite, along with videotaped decapitations. The Israelis have a whole collection of such charming types: they are arming and training the separatists of the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), who conduct terrorist attacks on civilian targets in Turkey, and are doing the same for the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), a weird Marxist cult formerly succored by Saddam Hussein, which has carried out terrorist attacks in Iran.

These are the allies and proxies of “the only democracy in the Middle East”!

The tactical objective behind Israeli support for Jundallah is simple: magnifying tensions between the US and Iran takes us farther down the road to war. When Rigi was captured and “confessed” on Iranian television, he averred that he was a tool of the CIA and claimed he had recently been on a US military base in Afghanistan: no doubt the Israelis were well pleased with their “student.” He had learned his lessons well.

Israeli sponsorship of Jundallah, the PKK, and MEK all point to Tel Aviv’s underlying strategic perspective, and that is a policy of sowing chaos whenever and wherever possible. If the idea is to atomize Israel’s neighbors, and reduce them to a condition of internal chaos, then this is surely the best way to go about it: by sponsoring every separatist and violently crazed sect that will take their cash.

“Flush with American dollars and toting U.S. passports,” as Perry put it, the Israelis arrived in London on the lookout for recruits. We know where those American dollars came from – straight out of the pockets of American taxpayers, who are forced to shell out over $3 billion every year in “foreign aid” to Israel. But what about those American passports? Maybe they came from the same place these passports originated. In the brouhaha over the Mossad’s theft of passports in New Zealand, Great Britain, Ireland, France, and elsewhere, no mention was ever made of any “cloned” American passports – but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

The Israelis cannot take out Iran all on their own: they need the US to deliver the death blow and execute a program of “regime change” on the ground. Then and only then will their goal of regional hegemony be realized. That’s why they’ve mobilized all their resources, including their numerous and vocal political allies in the United States, to pull out all the stops and provoke a shooting war between the US and Iran. That such an event would lead to an economic downturn that would make the present one seem relatively prosperous is irrelevant, from the narrow perspective of a rabid Israeli nationalist. And that is precisely who is making policy in Israel today: the most extreme right-wing ultra-nationalist government since the founding of the Jewish state.

To these extremists, the Americans are an obstacle rather than a valued ally. And they have increasing power in Israel, in the government and in society at large. Fundamentalists are pushing the separation of the sexes, and the powerful religious parties are campaigning for expanded “settlements,” i.e. more provocations aimed at the downtrodden Palestinians.

Isn’t it time we gave our “special relationship” with Israel a second look? As Israeli agents covertly seek to incite the peoples of the Middle East – including the Iranians – against us, one has to wonder, like those intelligence analysts cited above: just whose side are these guys on, anyway?
 
The answer is: they’re on their own side. The question Perry’s scoop ought to raise in the mind of every American is: when are we going to start being on our own side?

Source

You might like this: DC Appeals Court Brief Claims AIPAC is an Israeli Foreign Agent in Violation of IRS Regulations

Sunday, October 12, 2014

VETERANS: The Military is Leaving Your MIA Buddies Behind

The military (and other agencies) will do (or not do) whatever they want because our corporatist Neocon/Communist congress does not fulfill its  oversight mandates for the citizens who presumably elect them.

The Military is Leaving the Missing Behind
March 6, 2014, The Contributor
Tracing his genealogy online one night, John Eakin landed on a name that evoked an old family sorrow.

Arthur “Bud” Kelder, Eakin’s cousin, had died while a POW during World War II, but his body had never been found. Bud’s parents had sent handwritten letters to the Army for years, asking to have their youngest son’s body returned to them in Illinois.

“It is our hope that his remains may be sent here, for burial at home,” pleaded one.

Six decades later, Eakin, a stubborn Texan who was himself a vet, resolved to find out exactly why Bud had never come home.

In the fall of 2009, Eakin reached out to family members and found that Bud’s older brother had kept a trove of historical documents laying out Bud’s saga: the telegram announcing he was a POW, newspaper clippings, letters sent between Bud and his parents.

Before the Japanese invaded the Philippines, Bud had worked as a dental assistant at the American hospital in Manila, a plum assignment in a tropical getaway. In late 1941, the Army private wrote to his parents about saving his paycheck to buy a custom-made sharkskin suit. It “really is a peach,” Bud wrote.

After war broke out in December 1941, Bud was among 12,000 American troops who were besieged by the Japanese for four months on the Bataan peninsula, just south of Manila.

“What I dream is there will be no more separations between us again and we’ll spend more time together,” he wrote to his parents in cursive two months later. “P.S. Mother! Don’t worry about me.”

The Americans surrendered on April 9, 1942. The Japanese made Bud a driver during the infamousfive-day, 65-mile Bataan Death March. He eventually ended up at Cabanatuan, one of the largest POW camps for American troops.

When Eakin tried to figure out what happened next, he ran into an unexpected roadblock.

The Pentagon spends about $100 million a year to find men like Bud, following the ethos of “leave no man behind.” Yet it solves surprisingly few cases, hobbled by overlapping bureaucracy and a stubborn refusal to seize the full potential of modern forensic science. Last year, the military identified just 60 service members out of the about 83,000 Americans missing from World War II, Korea and Vietnam, around 45,000 of whom are considered recoverable.

At the center of the military’s effort is a little-known agency, the Joint Prisoners of War/Missing in Action Accounting Command, or J-PAC, and its longtime scientific director, Tom Holland. He alone assesses whether the evidence J-PAC has assembled is sufficient to identify a set of remains: A body goes home only if he signs off.

Over Holland’s 19-year tenure, J-PAC has stuck with an outdated approach that relies primarily on historical and medical records even as others in the field have turned to DNA to quickly and reliably make identifications.

Though finding missing service members can be difficult — some were lost deep in Europe’s forests, others in Southeast Asia’s jungles — Holland’s approach has stymied efforts to identify MIAs even when the military already knows where they are. More than 9,400 service members are buried as “unknowns” in American cemeteries around the world. Holland's lab has rejected roughly nine out of every 10 requests to exhume such graves.

Holland’s cautious approach is animated by a fear of mistakes.

“Our credibility is only as good as our last misidentification,” he said in an interview. “It doesn't matter that I've identified 500 people correctly. If I misidentify one, that’s what going to be the focus. That’s what's going to be on the news. That is what is going to erode the credibility. That’s what I go home with every night.”

The top military official at J-PAC, Gen. Kelly McKeague, said he believed the standards for laboratory work to identify a veteran should be higher than the FBI lab’s standard for a death penalty case. With what J-PAC does, he said, there’s “a lot more at stake.”

In recent years, J-PAC and the other agencies responsible for the MIA program have come under intensifying scrutiny. In 2010, when Congress added World War II to J-PAC’s mission, it mandated at least 200 identifications overall a year by 2015 — a benchmark the agency has already said it will not meet. The problems, including those of DNA, go beyond J-PAC. Last month, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel ordered a review of how the military manages the effort.

Time is running out. There are 35,000 missing who experts say are findable from WWII. But the

MIA’s closest relatives are dying off — and often with them so are the chances for using DNA to finally identify their long-lost loved ones.  

Working from a home he built by hand in Helotes, just north of San Antonio, the gray-haired, lanky Eakin began his search by requesting Bud’s records from the Army.

He got back a remarkable document. Despite horrid conditions, the Americans prisoners had left a road map to find Bud and others like him: the “Cabanatuan POW Camp Death Report.”

Barely surviving on a little more than two cups of rice every day, the POWs had still managed to document the deaths of their comrades. It was a monumental task. Of the several thousand prisoners housed at the camp, only about 500 made it out.

Each day, the survivors dug a single unmarked grave to bury that day’s dead. And each day, the officers kept a meticulous ledger of the men who had died. However little that death roster meant in the prison camp, later, the POWs knew, it would be crucial to getting the fallen home.

The entry for Nov. 19, 1942, lists 14 men. Among them: Private Arthur “Bud” H. Kelder, dead at 4:35 p.m. The 26-year-old had succumbed to pellagra, a vitamin deficiency common among the starved prisoners.

Bud’s parents, unaware of his death for eight more months, kept writing him. On May 20, 1943, Bud’s father wrote, “Dear son, another week has gone and still no word from you. We hope you have a few letters on the way to us.”

Bud’s 34-page file had sat untouched by the government for nearly 60 years, a forgotten folder in a vast repository at the National Archives. Had anyone looked it over, they would have found what Eakin did: The military actually had a pretty good sense of where Bud was.

The files included not only a date for Bud's death, but also a specific grave for him. After the war, the Army had gone to the POW camp to dig up and identify the bodies of more than 2,700 men who died there. Using the Cabanatuan camp report and recollections of the survivors, the Army numbered the communal graves and matched them with the death list.Bud and 13 others had been in Grave 717.

Limited by the science of the time, the Army was able to identify and send home four men from that grave but not Bud. In the early 1950s, the remaining 10, along with more than 900 others who died at Cabanatuan, were reburied individually as unknowns in an American cemetery in Manila. White crosses marked their graves, bearing the words “Here Rests in Honored Glory A Comrade in Arms. Known but to God.”

To Eakin, it seemed obvious that Bud was among the 10 unidentified sets of remains from Grave 717 — a relatively small group of bones that the military could dig up and test against the DNA of family members. He tried to make it easier for the Pentagon by tracking down relatives of the men in the grave, so they could provide DNA for comparison. He even turned over an envelope Bud had licked.

Eakin said he thought identifying Bud would be "such a no-brainer.”

Reviewing details of the case later, Joshua Hyman, the head of the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s DNA Sequencing Facility, described it as a “piece of cake.”

But no one in the military seemed to show much interest. Every month, Eakin called the Army, asking, “When are you going to go dig up these remains?”

Bud’s fate rested with Holland and J-PAC’s lab on a joint Navy-Air Force base in Honolulu.

With his beard, slightly ruffled appearance, and a penchant for storytelling, Holland has the air of a liberal arts professor. Walking through the hallway outside his lab, he pointed proudly to displays of artifacts found with recovered remains: Tattered uniforms, faded, crinkled pictures and pineapple-shaped grenades.

Holland joined J-PAC in 1992 and has spent his entire scientific career there, becoming the lab's director in 1995. “The lab has been his life,” said Mark Leney, a former J-PAC anthropologist who worked with Holland for six years. “He has an enormous sense of ownership of it.”

Though J-PAC is a military command, the generals who rotate in and out for temporary assignments take no role in the scientific decisions, leaving them to Holland. Almost a dozen current and former staffers described Holland as someone who bridles at being challenged and fiercely protects his fiefdom.

“Expressing dissent was clearly not appreciated and frowned on,” said Leney, who now teaches at the University of Massachusetts Medical School.

Leney said he and another anthropologist wrote Holland a memo in 2002 about problems with procedures and standards at the lab. They asked for guidance and clarification. “Here is my guidance:Don’t ever write a memo like this again unless it is stapled to your resignation,” Holland wrote back.

J-PAC currently has about 500 employees, including historians and military logisticians to coordinate overseas digs, but it’s work in the lab that people are most likely to conjure. The lab has even been featured on the new “Hawaii Five-0.” (Holland had a cameo.) Holland’s longtime work at the lab recently earned him a lifetime achievement award from the American Academy of Forensic Sciences.

Swiping his badge and entering the bright, sterile lab, which is not much bigger than a classroom, Holland walked by 16 long metal tables with bones laid out, some with a complete skeletons, and others with pieces of bone that look like piles of jagged stones. Some bones were grayed out like seashells, and others were dark brown, almost burnt looking – the different colors betraying the countries in which they were found. Vietnam’s acidic ground bites at bones, leaving them pitted. One skeleton had a green-tinted sternum and ribs, a patina from oxidation of a copper belt with bullets that was strapped to the vet’s chest.

“There’s no formula that applies to every case,” Holland said.

Under Holland’s direction, J-PAC’s lab hasn’t prioritized DNA analysis, despite it being an advancement that has revolutionized forensic science. J-PAC’s method begins with historians sifting through archival material to start to narrow down who someone might be.

“It may be 100 people, 200 people, 500 people, that’s fine,” Holland said.

Then they compare bones to dental charts and other medical records. Combining that with archaeological analysis and artifacts, they try to winnow down the list to one person. DNA comes in last, only as a confirmation tool.

Scientists engaged in similar work elsewhere do the opposite. They start with DNA and let it drive the process, taking samples from bones they dig up and cross-referencing them against databases of DNA from the families of the missing to find a match.

“It’s how you get people identified these days,” said Clyde Snow, one of the world’s foremost forensic anthropologists. “It opened up a whole new world for us.”

Since the earlier 2000s, the DNA-led approach has been used in more than 30 countries to efficiently identify casualties of mass tragedies, including the United States after Sept. 11.

In post-conflict Bosnia, scientists initially used the traditional anthropological techniques that J-PAC relies on now and identified only seven out of the more than 4,000 bodies from the Srebrenica massacre, according to Ed Huffine, a forensic scientist who later designed a DNA-led process there.   

Once they turned to DNA, Huffine said, they were able to make 400 identifications per month at the peak of their efforts.

J-PAC does occasionally start from DNA when bones from many people have been mixed together – as they have done with a complicated case involving 500 co-mingled remains from the Korean War.

But Holland’s deputy at J-PAC, John Byrd, said the lab rarely needs to resort to that. While using DNA first makes sense in places like Bosnia, where authorities lacked medical records for the missing, the U.S. military keeps copious records. And even advocates of DNA agree that relying on records can make sense in some cases.

J-PAC has also faced with cases in which DNA wasn’t an option. Soldiers buried as unknowns from the Korean War were embalmed, making DNA extraction impossible. Holland’s team developed a much-admired innovation to get around that limitation, matching clavicle bones to chest radiographs taken to screen for tuberculosis.

But those cases are an exception. Typically, Holland’s lab has been able to extract DNA, including on all WWII cases it has worked on.  

“If we worked together, concentrating on DNA, we could decrease greatly the time it takes to make identifications,” said a current J-PAC anthropologist, who favors using DNA first.

Holland insists his process works. Making an identification “is an awesome burden,” Holland said, sitting in his paper-strewn office. Sticky notes act as a Rolodex, one wall displays dozens of photocopies of his hand with notes he wrote on his palm during meetings, and on a shelf in his bookcase are copies of two novels he penned – starring a fictionalized version of himself.  “At the end of the day, I carry that burden.”

“If there is a better way to do it, I’m willing to take a look at it, but at some point the government pays me to do my job,” he said in a measured cadence that conveyed both annoyance and self-restraint. “And clearly I’m biased here, but I think I do a fairly good job.”

Holland’s job has been made harder by the overall military’s failure to systematically collect and sort comparison DNA samples from family members of the missing.

Scientists in Argentina, where around 9,000 disappeared in the country’s “dirty war,” started assembling a database of such samples even before they had the technology to analyze them.

“We were collecting samples even though there was no possibility to process them, but the relatives were dying,” said Mercedes Doretti, co-founder of the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team. Later, Argentina launched a national campaign — funded in part by the U.S. government — to collect more DNA, using famous actors and soccer teams to promote it.

There has been no such campaign in the U.S. In an era of Facebook and Twitter, J-PAC officials heralded a 2001 Pentagon letter that ran in the widely syndicated “Ask Ann Landers” column. It didn’t work. Fewer samples came in after the letter than before, an Army official said.

Huffine and other experts say using DNA effectively requires one central database and single authority overseeing it. But the Pentagon has six different agencies handling aspects of DNA testing and collection, spread out from Hawaii to Delaware. Each military branch is tasked with collecting samples from relatives of the missing from their service.

The Pentagon has relatively complete records for Vietnam and Korea but only a fraction of the needed samples from WWII. Nothing was on record for Bud or the others from Grave 717 until Eakin got involved.

The Army organizes its samples broadly by war and not by theater, major battle or event. Officials said they had no way to discern how many samples they had in hand related to the Cabanatuan unknowns, for example.

Once the military does get DNA samples, there are further delays. The Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory, which processes samples for J-PAC, takes 110 days on average to sequence DNA, much longer than commercial labs.

“Just waiting for DNA and trying to find a donor for DNA” from a family member — “a lot of the pauses in progress occur there,” a former J-PAC anthropologist said.

Eakin first heard of Bud as a teenager, when, looking at framed photographs on the wall, he asked about a black-and-white photo of a young man he didn’t recognize.

“That’s Bud,” his grandfather told him in a quiet voice.

“That was the only time I saw my grandpa cry,” Eakin recalled.
FINISH READING

Friday, September 26, 2014

Neo-Con Republicans Make Pilgrimage to Vegas to Kiss the Ring of Oligarch Sheldon Adelson

Chris Christie, Sheldon Adelson and Jeb Bush are pictured in this composite. Republican hopefuls are appearing in Vegas in part to court . (politico.com)

Posted on
Oligarchs are ruining America. They are ruining the economy through their rampant theft and corporate welfare handouts. They are ruining our social structure with their billions used to buy and sell politicians as well as entire Presidential elections. They represent an existential threat to the Republic and the cancer needs to be addressed at once.
Oligarchs now control both phony political parties. On the Democratic side, we have Warren “tax loophole” Buffett and George Soros. On the Republican side, we must become increasingly aware of casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, who boasts an estimated net worth of around $37 billion.

For those still daydreaming that the GOP may nominate a more libertarian-leaning candidate in 2016, rather than the typical big government, warmongering neo-con, the biggest obstacle in your way is Sheldon Adelson and his billions. This threat was on clear display this past weekend in Vegas when Chris Christie, Paul Walker and Jeb Bush all made the pilgrimage to “kiss his ring.”

The serious threat to our political system posed by Adelson was covered by both “left-leaning” and “right-leaning” commentators (although I hate those terms). First, Juan Cole writes at Bill Moyers that:

A series of pro-corporation Supreme Court decisions and the latter’s disingenuous equation of money with speech, including Citizens United, have turned the United States from a democracy to a plutocracy. It is not even a transparent plutocracy, since black money (of unknown provenance) has been allowed by SCOTUS to flood into elections. These developments are not only deadly to democracy, they threaten our security. It is increasingly difficult to exclude foreign money from US political donations. We not only come to be ruled by the billionaires, but even by foreign billionaires with foreign rather than American interests at heart.

The perniciousness of this growing plutocracy was on full display on Saturday, as GOP governors Scott Walker, Chris Christie and John Kasich trekked off to Las Vegas in an attempt to attract hundreds of millions in campaign donations from sleazy casino lord Sheldon Adelson. 
Since Adelson is allegedly worth $37 billion, he could fund the Republican side of a presidential election (which costs $1 billion) all by himself. In the last presidential election he is said to have donated $100 million.

One important thing he thing he failed to mention was that Jeb Bush was also there, featuring prominently at a private dinner with Adelson and others.

The case of Adelson exhibits all these issues of corruption and eccentricity. Much of his current fortune is recent and derives from the Macao casino, and Adelson has admitted to “likely” breaking Federal rules against using bribes to do business in other countries. (A reference to allegations that his company was involved in rewarding legislators of the Chinese Communist Party for supporting his Macao project.) There was a time when this admission alone would put the donor off limits for mainstream politicians.

Adelson has a right to vote and advocate for his candidates. But the idea that he and his like should choose the next president is too awful to contemplate. One person, one vote isn’t one person, $100 million worth of votes. That isn’t democracy…

CBS has also chimed in with some interesting commentary:

Both Christie and Bush are cut from the same mainstream Republican cloth: well liked by the donor class and viewed suspiciously by conservative activists. If they both compete in 2016 — and to be clear, neither has decided on a bid — they’ll be fighting for the roughly same slice of the Republican pie, and perhaps more importantly, many of the same donors.

But as Christie stumbled, Bush soared. The former governor was feted at a private dinner on Thursday to kick off the weekend. The dinner was held at Adelson’s private airplane hangar.

Bush delivered brief remarks at the dinner, and after one attendee urged him to run for president, the crowd of donors burst into applause, according to a report in the Washington Post.

That report described how many of the GOP’s top money men are giving Jeb Bush a fresh look in light of Christie’s recent struggles.

“He’s the most desired candidate out there,” Brian Ballard, a prominent bundler for both John McCain and Mitt Romney, told the Post. 

“Everybody that I know is excited about it.”

Finally, conservative pundit Patrick Buchanan notes:

Victor Chaltiel, a major donor and Adelson friend who sits on the board of Las Vegas Sands, tells us Sheldon “doesn’t want a crazy extremist to be the nominee.” Adds Shawn Steel, a big California GOP money man, Sheldon is a “very rational guy.”

Perhaps. But last fall at Yeshiva University, this “very rational guy” gave this response to a question from Rabbi Shmuley Boteach on whether he supports U.S. negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program:

“No. What do you mean support negotiations? What are we going to negotiate about? What I would say is, ‘Listen, you see that desert out there, I want to show you something.’ … You pick up your cell phone and you call somewhere in Nebraska and you say, ‘OK let it go.’

“So, there’s an atomic weapon, goes over ballistic missiles, the middle of the desert, that doesn’t hurt a soul. Maybe a couple of rattlesnakes, and scorpions, or whatever.

“And then you say, ‘See! The next one is in the middle of Tehran. So, we mean business. You want to be wiped out? Go ahead and take a tough position and continue with your nuclear development.

Those are the words of the guy who is likely to determine the Republican Presidential nominee.

It’s incredibly disturbing that what we may end up with is another Bush running for the White House in 2016. Meanwhile, we all know Hilary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. Of the hundreds of millions of Americans, why must we stick to two families (let’s not forget how Jeb Bush presented the “Liberty Medal” to Hillary Clinton last summer).
Face it, America today is far more similar to feudalism than a democracy or a republic.

It’s well past time we rein in the oligarchs.

In Liberty,
Michael Krieger


SOURCE