woensdag 29 januari 2020

How the Israeli military censor killed a story about ‘terrorist’ bombing campaign in Lebanon in 1980s


Afbeeldingsresultaat voor Mondoweiss



How the Israeli military censor killed a story about ‘terrorist’ bombing campaign in Lebanon in 1980s

Media Analysis 



Front page story in the New York Times in 1983 on a terrorist bombing that killed Palestinians in Lebanon. The bombing campaign has now been confirmed as an Israeli one that claimed 100s of innocent lives
June, 1980. Over the previous weeks Israeli air and sea attacks on “Palestinian and leftist positions” have been “almost nightly events.” According to Christian Science Monitor journalist Helena Cobban, however, a “more sinister Israeli hand is seen behind some of the increased unrest throughout the country.” Indeed, “several enormous car bombs have exploded here recently in locations with a heavy concentration of Palestinian or Syrian population.” At least two were claimed by a group calling itself the Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners (FLLF).
The mysterious group’s modus operandi, Cobban writes, “seem[s] to indicate the influence of some Israeli extremist groups” like the ones behind car-bomb attacks against three Palestinian mayors in the West Bank on June 2. To an “embittered Palestinian scholar,” who spoke to Cobban, they also brought to mind “the terror-bombings launched against Palestinian villages by Mr. Begin’s own Irgun extremist group” in the 1940s. “Then, the aim was to drive us out of Palestine, and they largely succeeded… Now they want to drive us out of Lebanon. Where can we go? The Israelis are going mad, but this time round, the world cannot support their terror. Or can it?”
Over the following 3 years, hundreds of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians were killed, and many more wounded, by explosive devices hidden in baskets, on bicycles or mules, in cars or trucks. After each attack, calls to the media were placed claiming responsibility in the name of the FLLF. Palestinian and Lebanese officials repeatedly insisted that the FLLF was merely a fiction intended to hide the hand of Israel and its Christian rightist allies. Israeli officials rejected such accusations, insisting rather that the bombings were part of an internecine war amongst rival Arab factions. Several of these bombings are included in the RAND and START “terrorism databases.”
In August 2012, the New Yorker published a profile of Meir Dagan, the former head of Mossad. Dagan was known as a “ruthless agent,” David Remnick writes, and his career was rumored to have included “operations of all kinds – car bombing, poisoning, cyberwar.” Indeed, before Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982 Yigal Sarna and Anat Tal-Shir, two reporters for the Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot, had investigated the possibility that Dagan had “led a secret unit across the border whose mission was to instigate terrorist events that would justify an incursion.” Remnick adds: “Military censors killed the story, Sarna told me. Dagan acknowledges the censorship but denies the thrust of the story.”
Israeli journalist Noam Sheizaf posted Remnick’s story on his Facebook page and, as he wrote in 972 Magazine, Sarna commented as follows: “Indeed, the censorship [on these stories] has been on for years. Horrifying things were done there, not just planned.”
Yet another profile of Dagan published in Haaretz in 2016 presented a more detailed account of the story and, this time, explicitly mentioned the FLLF.
Before the invasion of Lebanon in 1982, military correspondent Amir Oren reported, an officer who served under Dagan “claimed that on orders from the IDF, under cover of the Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners, deadly strikes were being carried out against Palestinian targets, and the casualties included innocent civilians.” That anonymous complaint “reached the press,” he said, “and from there – even though the military censor forbade publication – it reached Begin.”
The complaint named four senior Israeli officials: Raphael Eitan, the IDF Chief of Staff; Meir Dagan, the commander of the South Lebanon Region; head of Northern Command Avigdor Ben-Gal; and Shlomo Ilya, an intelligence officer. Yehoshua Saguy, the head of Military Intelligence, looked into the allegations and concluded that they were accurate. His complaint led nowhere however: according to Oren, Prime Minister Menachem Begin “didn’t want to believe it, especially on the eve of an election.”
In February 2018 Ronen Bergman, at the time the senior correspondent for military and intelligence affairs for Yedioth Ahronoth, published Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassination.

Ronen Bergman with his book at the Fifth Avenue Barnes and Noble in February 2018. Photo from Instagram.
This extensively-researched book contains several pages devoted to the FLLF operation. Based on interviews with officials involved in the operation or who were aware of its existence at the time, it confirms that the Palestinians had been right all along: the FLLF was indeed a creation of Israel, a fictitious group used by senior officials to hide their country’s hand in a deadly ‘terrorist’ campaign.
The group was created by Eitan, Ben-Gal and Dagan in 1979. In the words of David Agmon, head of the Northern Command Staff of the IDF, the objective was to “cause chaos among the Palestinians and Syrians in Lebanon, without leaving an Israeli fingerprint, to give them the feeling that they were constantly under attack and to instill them with a sense of insecurity.” Bergman makes no reference to Shlomo Ilya, the intelligence officer mentioned in Oren’s Haaretz article.
In its early stage, the group used explosives “concealed in cans of oil or preserves” that were built in a metal shop of Kibbutz Mahanayim where Ben-Gal lived at the time. The explosives themselves were sourced from the IDF’s bomb disposal unit so as to “minimize the chance that any connection with Israel might be revealed.”
Eitan, Ben-Gal and Dagan were unable to keep their operation airtight however. In Rise and Kill First, Bergman provides fascinating accounts of early (and unsuccessful) efforts by senior officers and members of the government to push back against such methods, accounts that confirm the accuracy of Remnick’s and Oren’s stories.
In 1980 Yehoshua Saguy, the head of Military Intelligence, informed Deputy Defense Minister Mordechai Zippori that Ben-Gal was conducting “rogue operations” inside Lebanon. In one instance, a car bomb meant for PLO personnel had detonated on a main road in southern Lebanon, killing an unspecified number of “women and children.”
In June 1980, the month when Helena Cobban’s Christian Science Monitor story was published, a meeting was convened in the Prime Minister’s office. Zippori accused Ben-Gal of conducting “unauthorized actions in Lebanon” and insisted that “women and children have been killed.” Ben-Gal replied that this was incorrect (“Four or five terrorists were killed. Who drives around in Lebanon in a Mercedes at 2 a.m.? Only terrorists”) and assured Menachem Begin that he had received permission for the action. The Prime Minister accepted these assurances and, Bergman writes, from that point on “the top brass realized there was no point in asking the prime minister to rectify the situation.”
The story investigated by Yigal Sarna and Anat Tal-Shir was accurate. And Dagan’s denials to Remnick were lies.
When the Israeli military censor banned publication of the story, therefore, it covered up serious state crimes that had already been committed. Even more problematically, this decision made it possible for Israel to continue, following Likud’s (very narrow) victory in the 1981 legislative elections, to use the FLLF to conduct an ever deadlier, and fully covert, campaign of “terrorism.”
On August 5, 1981, Menachem Begin picked Ariel Sharon to replace him as Defense Minister. As Israeli historians have long documented, for the next 10 months the Begin government engaged in military operations, from the air and the ground, in order to goad the Palestinians into a military response that would be used to justify a major military offensive into Lebanon.
As Rise and Kill First documents in detail, the FLLF bombings were an integral part of this Israeli strategy of provocation. Indeed, the new Defense Minister immediately decided to “activate” the FLLF operation and sent Eitan as his personal emissary to “keep an eye” on the clandestine operation. Remarkably, at the time Eitan was serving as Begin’s “counterterrorism” adviser.
Sharon “hoped that these operations would provoke Arafat into attacking Israel,” Bergman writes, “which could then respond by invading Lebanon, or at least make the PLO retaliate against the Phalange, whereupon Israel would be able to leap in great force to the defense of the Christians.”
“By mid-September 1981,” he explains, “car bombs were exploding regularly in Palestinian neighborhoods of Beirut and other Lebanese cities.”
Several of these bombings were covered in the US press at the time.
On September 17, 1981, a car bomb exploded outside of the command center shared by the PLO and its Lebanese leftist allies in the port city of Sidon, killing over 20, most of them women and children who lived in nearby apartment buildings, John Kifner reported in the New York Times.
Two days later, another “terrorist bomb” killed four in a crowded movie theater in West Beirut, Kifner reported. The FLLF claimed responsibility, but Palestinian officials immediately insisted that the group is “fictitious,” a ploy used by Israel to hide its hand in these attacks.
On October 1, a car exploded near PLO offices in a crowded street in Moslem west Beirut, killing 90, as Kifner and the UPI reported. Several other vehicles loaded with explosives were found and defused in Beirut and Sidon “in what was intended as a devastating blitz against Palestinians and leftist Lebanese militiamen by rightist terrorists.”
The FLLF claimed responsibility, but a PLO official blamed Israeli agents for planting the bomb in “sort of a secret war” against Palestinians. Lebanese Prime Minister Chafik Wazzan agreed. Because the cease-fire was preventing Israel from “persisting in its acts of destruction and killing in Lebanon through its air force or other attacks,” he argued, it was “looking for other tactics, the cowardly ones to which it is currently resorting either directly or through agents.’ Israeli officials rejected such claims, insisting instead that the bombings were part of a ‘war among gangs which make up the PLO.”
RAND report on ‘recent trends in international terrorism’ published in April 1983 describes a few of these bombings in some detail. The death toll from these few bombings adds up to 120. By comparison, and according to the same RAND report, in 1980 and 1981 combined Palestinian ‘terrorists’ killed a grand total of 16 people. As UPI journalist Fred Schiff wrote at the time, over just two weeks the FLLF’s ‘wave of terror bombings’ in its totality claimed 308 lives.

Portion of database compiled by Rand on the Front for Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners
Importantly, at the exact same time Israeli officials were conducting an extensive public relations (or ‘hasbara’) campaign aimed at convincing the rest of the Western world, and especially the United States, of the seriousness of the threat posed by “terrorism.” In this narrative, Israelis were the main victims, and never the perpetrators, of “terrorism,” while the Palestinians were the main perpetrators of “terrorism,” never its victims.
This campaign was extraordinarily successful, and since the mid 1980s the American and Israeli discourses on “terrorism” have been virtually indistinguishable. A number of actors, from elected officials to “terrorism experts,” played a central role in this deeply ideological process of meaning production.
The military censor’s decision to ban Sarna’s and Tal-Shir’s story, and thus to cover up the fact that senior Israeli officials were, at that exact same time, conducting a largescale campaign of “terrorism” in Lebanon, was just as central to this process.
The censor’s decision made it possible for Israeli leaders to insist, in June 1982, that the invasion of Lebanon was justified in the name of fighting “terrorism.” Remarkably, it made it possible for Ariel Sharon to take to the pages of the New York Times in August 1982 and insist that Israeli troops “were greeted as liberators for driving out the terrorists who had raped and pillaged and plundered” the country. They had followed the Jewish doctrine of tohar haneshek, “the moral conduct of war,” Sharon added, a policy that stood “in vivid contrast to the P.L.O.’s practice of attacking only civilian targets.”

Ariel Sharon
When he penned this Opinion piece, the Israeli defense minister had been personally conducting “terrorist” attacks in Lebanon for a full year.
The FLLF bombing campaign would continue until late 1983. Its deadliest attacks were covered on the front pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post. The actual number of victims of this Israeli “terrorist” campaign will probably never be known. Still, it seems quite clear that, as Lee O’Brien, a U.N. official, wrote in MERIP in October 1983, between 1979 and 1983 the FLLF bombs did kill at least several hundred civilians, wounding countless more.
Rise and Kill First provides a clear picture of the inner workings of this Israeli “terrorist” campaign. The explosives were “packed in Ariel laundry powder bags” so as to look like “innocent goods” when going through roadblocks. Women were chosen to drive “to reduce the likelihood of the cars being caught” on the way to their target, and the cars themselves were “developed in the IDF’s Special Operations Executive.” As one Israeli intelligence officer told Bergman:
With Sharon’s backing, terrible things were done. I am no vegetarian, and I supported and even participated in some of the assassination operations Israel carried out. But we are speaking here about mass killing for killing’s sake, to sow chaos and alarm, among civilians, too. Since when do we send donkeys carrying bombs to blow up in marketplaces?
Another one added:
I saw from a distance one of the cars blowing up and demolishing an entire street. We were teaching the Lebanese how effective a car bomb could be. Everything that we saw later with Hezbollah sprang from what they saw had happened after these operations.
Rise and Kill First was published in February 2018. It was very positively reviewed in the US press. Bergman gave public talks, was interviewed on TV news programs, and his work was praised by prominent ‘terrorism experts.’ The book made several bestseller’s lists and was nominated for a number of end-of-the-year awards.
And yet, over the last 18 months Bergman’s extraordinary revelations about the FLLF operation have not been mentioned or discussed once in the US media. This is the case even though, unlike Sarna and Tal-Shir, American journalists (including prominent figures such as Thomas Friedman, who personally covered FLLF bombings on the front page of the New York Times in the 1980s) operate in a country where the press is free from censorship.

Front page of the New York Times from February 6, 1983 featuring an article by on Thomas Friedman on a bombing by the Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners
As a consequence, in the United States the terms of the public debate about Israel, the Palestinians and “terrorism” have remained unchallenged. The Palestinians continue to be presented as the perpetrators, and never the victims, of “terrorism.” Israelis continue to be presented as the victims, and never the perpetrators, of “terrorism.”
This public discussion has thus been allowed to proceed as if the FLLF bombing campaign had never happened, as if the Palestinians had never been the victims of this widespread campaign of “terrorism,” as if this campaign hadn’t been directed by some of the most prominent Israeli figures of the last decades, men who repeatedly claimed to be absolutely opposed to “terrorism,” men who defended their country’s repeated uses of force as justified by the uniquely evil nature of the threat posed by “terrorism.”
It is time to break the silence surrounding Israel’s “terrorist” campaign in Lebanon.
It is time to question the validity of a discourse that has only led to more violence and more deaths, a discourse that could never have emerged but for an act of state censorship.
In the name of historical truth.
In the name of the FLLF’s hundreds of forgotten victims.
In the name of victims of “terrorism” everywhere, regardless of the identity of the perpetrators.
Rémi Brulin
Remi Brulin received his PhD at La Sorbonne Nouvelle (Paris) in 2011. His dissertation is a historical analysis of the American discourse on "terrorism," and can be accessed and downloaded here. He has taught at New York University, George Washington University and, currently, at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. You can follow him on Twitter here: @rbrulin.

The far-right Bolsonaro movement wants us dead. But we will not give up






The far-right Bolsonaro movement wants us dead. But we will not give up....



Demagogues rely on fear to consolidate power. But courage is contagious – that’s why we must join hands and fight back

David Miranda and Glenn Greenwald in 2013.  David Miranda and Glenn Greenwald in 2013. Photograph: Evaristo Sa/AFP via Getty Images
Wed 29 Jan 2020 
 and 
Substantial media coverage over the last year, within Brazil and internationally, has been devoted to threats and attacks we each received, separately and together, due to our work – David’s as a congressman and Glenn’s as a journalist.
These incidents have been depicted, rightfully so, as reflective of the increasingly violent and anti-democratic climate prevailing in Brazil as a result of the far-right, authoritarian, dictatorship-supporting movement of President Jair Bolsonaro, which consolidated substantial power in the election held at the end of 2018.
There was much discussion when David entered congress in early 2019 after the only other openly LGBTQ+ congress member, Jean Wyllys, fled his seat and the country in fear of his life. 
As a longtime LGBTQ+ celebrity and sole LGBTQ+ member of Congress, Wyllys had endured constant death threats and even bullying from fellow members of congress. His multiple fights with Bolsonaro and his sons made him a particular object of contempt by that movement. 
That they now occupied full-scale power made his remaining in Brazil untenable.hat Wyllys was replaced by another LGBTQ+ congress member provoked a contentious exchange between David and Bolsonaro that went viral on Twitter. David’s substantially increased visibility as the new LGBTQ+ member of Congress provoked countless and highly detailed death threats from the Bolsonaro movement toward our family. That David, in 2016, had become the first-ever elected LGBTQ+ member of the Rio city council already had made him a target of much animus in a city dominated by paramilitary gangs and rightwing evangelical groups.
But his new status as the only openly LGBTQ+ member of the lower house of the federal congress made him a prime target of the vitriolic anti-LGBTQ+ Bolsonaro movement. That primal animus was enhanced by the fact that our public 15-year marriage and our two children serve as a living refutation of the false and toxic depiction of LGBTQ+ life as barren, unhappy, sickly and solitary, an anti-LGBTQ+ demonization campaign that is central to the Bolsonaro movement’s political identity.
A massive new wave of media coverage about our family was triggered when Glenn and the Intercept began their series of explosive exposés last June about rampant corruption at the highest levels of the Bolsonaro government, provoking a wave of violent threats, official acts of reprisals and a powerful fake news machine erected by the Bolsonaro movement against their enemies. All of those seemingly endless multipronged attacks culminated last week in criminal charges brought against Glenn by a far-right prosecutor that have been widely condemned domestically and internationally as legally frivolous and a blatant assault on a free press.
But the sense of danger and political violence in our lives, and for many others in Brazil, began almost two years ago. On 14 March 2018, Marielle Franco – the LGBTQ+, black, favela-raised city councilwoman from Rio de Janeiro – was gunned down while riding in her car on the streets of Rio at roughly 9pm in a brutal political assassination. Marielle was one of our family’s best friends as well as a rising political star, a vessel of hope to so many people marginalized for decades and who had no voice. The loss was a major trauma, still unhealed, for both the country and for our lives.
Franco was a member of David’s party, the leftwing Socialism and Liberty party (PSOL). David – also black, LGBTQ+ and raised in a violent favela as an orphan – was as unlikely as Franco to occupy political power in a country long plagued by severe inequality, racial inequities, and discrimination of all types. Because they shared the same causes of combating lethal police violence and inequality, they sat next to one another in the city council chamber. Her politically-motivated murder at the age of 37 brought political violence into our lives as a lurking, terrorizing reality which has only intensified since then.
The end of that year saw the election of Bolsonaro as president despite his decades-long advocacy of a return to the US/UK-supported military dictatorship. That regime brutally ruled the country with torture and murder until 1985, torturing and killing dissidents, journalists and anyone who opposed them. Along with his long-taboo praise for the dictatorship (except when he criticized it for being insufficiently violent and repressive), Bolsonaro, though relegated to the fringes of political life as a congressman for 30 years, gained media attention through a slew of shockingly bigoted comments against the nation’s racial minorities, its indigenous population in the Amazon and especially against LGBTQ+ people.
But in the 2018 election, it was not only Bolsonaro but also his far-right Social Liberal party (PSL), which barely existed the year before, that enjoyed a stunning rise to power. Virtually overnight, PSL, filled with previously obscure and fanatically anti-democratic figures, became the second most represented party in congress, just a few seats behind the center-left Workers’ party that had governed the country since 2002. Among its elected members were two police candidates who, days before the election, had destroyed a street sign erected in homage to Franco with their fists raised in the air.
Just weeks after Bolsonaro’s election, a terrifying scandal was revealed in which Bolsonaro’s eldest son, Flávio, who had been elected to the federal senate in the 2018 election, was found to have employed in his cabinet as a state representative for a full decade both the wife and mother of the chief of Rio’s most violent and feared paramilitary gang. Composed largely of police and military officers, the militia specialized in abusing their law enforcement expertise to carry out highly skilled pay-for-hire assassinations, including – police believed – the assassination of Franco.
A police operation carried out as part of the investigation into Franco’s murder succeeded in apprehending five of the top six militia leaders, but the sixth, who fled and is now a fugitive, was the top leader – the one whose wife and mother was disturbingly employed for 10 years by Bolsonaro’s son. This shocking link of the now all-powerful Bolsonaro family to the most terrifying paramilitary gang of Rio has since been strengthened by newly discovered connections, including photos of Bolsonaro with both of the killers, that one of the ex-police officers arrested for having pulled the trigger that killed Franco was a neighbor of Bolsonaro’s in his gated community, while the other police officer, who was the driver of the car, has a daughter who dated Bolsonaro’s youngest son.
In early 2019, David’s replacement of Wyllys in congress became a much-publicized and dramatic story in a country where anti-LGBTQ+ animus had become a major force in Brazil’s political life and where very few LGBTQ+ candidates ever occupy high office. The acrimonious Twitter exchange between Bolsonaro and David instantly converted David into a new prime enemy of that movement.
That I had co-founded a growing and increasingly vocal Brazilian bureau of the Intercept in 2016 that was highly critical of the Bolsonaro campaign and then his presidency made us both visible adversaries of this newly empowered far-right movement. That we are a gay, interracial couple in a country governed by a virulently anti-LGBTQ+ movement made each of us separately, but especially together, a particularly reviled yet visible target of their wrath. In sum, the bulk of the hatred devoted to Wyllys quickly transferred to David, to our marriage and to our family. As a New York Times article in July put it “The two men find themselves on the front lines of the country’s increasingly bitter political divide.”
Since entering congress a little more than a year ago, David has not left the house without armed security and an armored vehicle of the kind that would have stopped the 11 bullets pumped into Franco’s car. We significantly escalated security measures at our home, and our two newly adopted sons had to be driven back and forth to school by security agents.
All of that was the context for the reporting Glenn and his Intercept colleagues began on 9 June 2019, and which has continued through to this day. It is hard to overstate the political impact of this journalism. As the Guardian reported last July, the reports “have had an explosive impact on Brazilian politics and dominated headlines for weeks”.
The last nine months of our lives, since the beginning of those reports, have been filled with attacks of every kind. We have received detailed death threats containing personal, non-public data available only to the state. Many have been directed at our two sons, sometimes with gruesome detail. A month after our reporting began, a news site notorious for being a dumping ground for leaks by Sérgio Moro announced that an agency under his command had initiated an investigation into Glenn’s personal finances, one stopped by the supreme court on the ground that it was clearly retaliatory and thus a violation of the constitutional guarantee of a free press. We learned in September that the same federal agency had also initiated an investigation into David’s personal finances, one launched two days after the Intercept’s reporting began.
With this reporting, the death threats intensified to an entirely new level. Now, in addition to David, Glenn also has not been able to leave home for any reason without a team of armed security and an armored vehicle since last June. The same is true of the Intercept’s Brazil editor, Leandro Demori, who has been the target of horrific threats aimed at this family. The exterior of our house now resembles a fortified prison, and its interior is filled with cameras and guards.
In November, Glenn appeared on a popular rightwing radio and YouTube program alongside a pro-Bolsonaro journalist who had, a month earlier, called on a children’s judge to investigate whether we are sufficiently taking care of our children – on the ground that David works as a congressman and Glenn works on these exposés. When Glenn confronted him on air about having used our children in this manner, the journalist physically assaulted him. The more significant part of the episode occurred afterwards: many of Bolsonaro’s closest allies, including his politician sons and the “guru” of his movement, not only cheered the assault but said their only regret was that the attack on Glenn was not more violent.
It is sometimes hard for citizens of centuries-old western democracies to appreciate how much easier it is for a young democracy like Brazil to easily slip back into full-scale tyranny, or to be violently brought back to it. That Brazil now has a president and is dominated by a political movement that openly seeks such a regression makes the threat all the more acute. In politics, they crave violence and civil conflict in lieu of dialogue and elections because they view those as the necessary conditions to justify a return of dictatorship-era repression. That is why they rely on threats, violence, attacks, intimidation and abuse of state power: they need civil upheaval and institutional conflict as a pretext for the repression they openly support.
When news broke last week that Glenn had been criminally charged, many wondered how that could have happened given that the federal police just weeks earlier had closed its comprehensive investigation into the hacking of Brazilian authorities and concluded that he was involved in no wrongdoing (to the contrary, the report emphasized that Glenn had exercised extreme caution in carrying out his work as a journalist). That the supreme court in July had barred any investigation into Glenn provoked the obvious question: if the high court had barred investigation of Glenn in connection with this journalism, how could they indict him for it?
The answer is that the Bolsonaro movement seeks to prove that they are not limited by law or anything else. To prove that, they will defy court orders, ignore police investigations, ran roughshod over all other institutions – just as the military dictatorship did by decree, using violence, torture and murder of dissidents, ignoring of supreme court orders and summary removal of congress members who even minimally opposed them. They playbook they are using is as dark and horrifying as it is familiar and obvious.
Because Glenn is a US citizen with a valid US passport, we could leave Brazil at any time. David and our sons would be entitled to automatic US citizenship. But we have not done that and we never will. Brazil is the country we love and we intend to fight this repression, not flee from it. Brazil is an extraordinary country, unique in so many ways, and it easily worth fighting for. We could never in good conscience exploit the privileges we have to leave behind a country we love and the millions of people who are not able to leave.
When you live in a country where roughly half the population endured life under a military tyranny, you end up meeting many who risked so much to fight against it and fight for democracy. Brazil re-democratized in 1985 only after two decades of profoundly difficult struggle, protest, organizing and resistance. We personally know many people who were imprisoned for their fight against the dictatorship. Many of their friends and comrades were murdered by the military regime while they fought for the cause of Brazilian democracy.
Courage is contagious. Those are the people who inspire us and so many like us in Bolsonaro’s Brazil who are confronting state repression to defend the democracy that so many people suffered so much to bring about. Demagogues and despots like Bolsonaro are a dime a dozen. They centrally rely on intimidation, fear and the use of state repression to consolidate power. A refusal to give into that fear, but instead to join hands with those who intend to fight against it, is always the antidote to this toxin.
  • Glenn Greenwald is a co-founding editor of The Intercept. He is also a former Guardian columnist. David Miranda is a member of the Brazilian congress for the Socialism and Liberty party and a Guardian US columnist

maandag 27 januari 2020

Terrorists 'helped by CIA' to stop rise of left in Italy






Terrorists 'helped by CIA' to stop rise of left in Italy

Mon 26 Mar 2001 




US intelligence services instigated and abetted rightwing terrorism in Italy during the 1970s, a former Italian secret service general has claimed.

The allegation was made by General Gianadelio Maletti, a former head of military counter-intelligence, at the trial last week of rightwing extremists accused of killing 16 people in the bombing of a Milan bank in 1969 - the first time such a charge has been made in a court of law by a senior Italian intelligence figure.
Gen Maletti, comannder of the counter-intelligence section of the military intelligence service from 1971 to 1975, said his men had discovered that a rightwing terrorist cell in the Venice region had been supplied with military explosives from Germany.
Those explosives may have been obtained with the help of members of the US intelligence community, an indication that the Americans had gone beyond the infiltration and monitoring of extremist groups to instigating acts of violence, he said.
"The CIA [Central Intelligence Agency], following the directives of its government, wanted to create an Italian nationalism capable of halting what it saw as a slide to the left and, for this purpose, it may have made use of rightwing terrorism," Gen Maletti told the Milan court. "I believe this is what happened in other countries as well."
The general has been living in South Africa for the last 21 years as a fugitive from Italian justice. He has been sentenced to 14 years imprisonment for leaking a secret service document to the press and last year received a 15-year sentence for obstructing justice. He was granted a special 15-day immunity from arrest to enable him to give evidence at the trial for the bombing of a bank in Milan's Piazza Fontana, the atrocity that inaugurated the "strategy of tension", a series of bombings intended to shift the country's political centre of gravity to the right.
"The impression was that the Americans would do anything to stop Italy from sliding to the left," Gen Maletti said during an interview at his Milan hotel.
"Don't forget that [former US president Richard] Nixon was in charge and Nixon was a strange man, a very intelligent politician but a man of rather unorthodox initiatives."
The CIA supported SID, the Italian defence intelligence service, financially, but Gen Maletti's US counterparts were rarely willing to share information. There may have been good reason for the American caginess. In a posthumous memoir published last year, the wartime resistance hero Count Edgardo Sogno described how he visited the CIA station chief in Rome in July 1974 to inform him of his plans for an anti-communist coup.
"I told him that I was informing him as an ally in the struggle for the freedom of the west and asked him what the attitude of the American government would be," Mr Sogno wrote. "He answered what I already knew: the United States would have supported any initiative tending to keep the communists out of government."
Despite contacts with his CIA counterparts, no word of the Sogno plot was uttered. "I, for one, didn't know about the Sogno thing. I knew Mr Sogno was being investigated by a Turin magistrate but I didn't know he had such important contacts with US agencies in the United States and Italy," Gen Maletti said. "Clearly, Sogno had great confidence in the complicity of the American service."
The lucid 79-year-old general, whose English is almost perfect, has spent his retirement in South Africa painting and writing his memoirs, which are due to be published soon. He admits to feeling nostalgic for his homeland.
But the judges who convicted him in absentia last year were far from convinced of his gentlemanly qualities. In their written verdict they said he had obstructed an investigation into a 1973 attack on the interior minister by withholding crucial information from the magistrates.
Four members of the public were killed and 45 injured when an anarchist, Gianfranco Bertoli, hurled a grenade into a crowd outside police headquarters in Milan. Bertoli, according to the judges, was really a man of right-wing sympathies and a long-standing SID informant, codenamed Negro. Gen Maletti's men were warned in advance of the attack on the minister, Mariano Rumor, but took no action to prevent it and failed to pass on their information on Bertoli even after the killings.
Gen Maletti's role at the heart of the complex intrigues makes him an illuminating witness. Italy must clarify the mysteries of that time if it is to recover its national dignity and sovereignty, he said.
"Among the larger western European countries, Italy has been dealt with as a sort of protectorate. I am ashamed to think that we are still subject to special supervision."

Terror police list that included Extinction Rebellion was shared across government






Terror police list that included Extinction Rebellion was shared across government

Document was sent to several departments, NHS England, Ofsted and 20 councils

Mon 27 Jan 2020 


The Extinction Rebellion flag in Marble Arch, London, last year The Extinction Rebellion flag in Marble Arch, London, last year. Photograph: Nick Moore/Alamy Stock Photo


Controversial guidance that listed Extinction Rebellion as an extremist ideology was sent to a wide range of government departments and local authorities including the Home Office and Counter Terrorism Policing headquarters, the Guardian can reveal.
The south-east division of Counter Terrorism Policing was forced to recall the document, which listed the climate crisis group alongside neo-Nazis and jihadists, after it was exposed by the Guardian.
After the Guardian revealed the document’s existence Counter Terrorism Policing South East (CTPSE) branded it an “error of judgment” and said it “was produced at a local level”.
But now, after an internal review, the unit has confirmed the guide was sent to the Home Office, the Department for Education, NHS England, the Ministry of Defence, HM Prison Service, Probation Service and Ofsted, as well as 20 local authorities, five police forces and Counter Terrorism Policing headquarters (CTPHQ) in London.

XR guidance
Pinterest

The guide placed Extinction Rebellion alongside neo-Nazi groups and jihadists and encouraged public sector workers to report any individuals with links to them to Prevent, the controversial anti-radicalisation programme.
The distribution list shows a wide range of organisations across the country were in receipt of it for more than a month before it was recalled and prompted questions over the lack of action taken by CTPHQ, the Home Office and others to flag its contents.
Yvette Cooper, the Labour MP and chair of the home affairs select committee in the last parliament, said: “The Home Office should explain what action they took when they received the CTPSE guidance and also whether they have yet asked other regional counter-terror units to review and share with the Home Office their counter-terror guidance to make sure they aren’t getting it wrong in the same way.
“The Home Office should show some leadership and responsibility on this. It isn’t about an individual investigation, where operational independence is crucial.
“Instead it involves the broader shared responsibility between the Home Office, the police and other agencies on how extremism should be defined, what the scope of counter-terror work should be and maintaining public confidence in the crucially important counter-terror work the police do.”
The document was also sent to unitary authorities and county councils in Milton Keynes, Slough, Bracknell Forest, Reading, Wokingham, West Berkshire, the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, Southampton, Portsmouth, the Isle Of Wight, Brighton and Hove, Medway, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Surrey, Hampshire, East Sussex, West Sussex and Kent.
Police forces for the Thames Valley, Hampshire, Sussex, Surrey and Kent also received the document.
A spokesperson for CTPHQ said: “CTPHQ was included in the wider email distribution list for this document. It was not sent for our review or approval, nor was it forwarded on by the individual that received it to others. As CTPSE has made clear, the document has now been recalled.”
The document was made available internally to NHS England staff but was not used for any specific briefings or training sessions.
It is understood staff working in counter-extremism in the Department for Education received the guide but it was not forwarded outside the department.
Likewise the Home Office did not forward it outside the department. The department did not request the guide, and it was not reviewed, commented on or cleared by the Home Office.


A spokesperson for Extinction Rebellion said: “We need to find out who knew what and when. But more importantly, we need to know why. Why are they trying to silence a peaceful, non-violent movement of people who are trying to make sure the world’s children have a future?”
Last week, the security minister, Brandon Lewis, failed to say when the Home Office had seen the document when an urgent question was granted on the Home Office’s oversight of the police in their operation of the Prevent programme.
When asked by Cooper when the Home Office saw the guidance, Lewis replied: “As I say, the police have withdrawn the document and are reviewing it.
“I fully respect, and the government respect, the independence of the police, and those guidance documents are part of their independence.
“The police produce those documents for their officers in the work that they do, and it is right that we respect that.
“The home secretary and I meet representatives and the leadership of counter-terrorism police and other partners on a weekly basis. We will raise this issue with them, to ensure that they are focused on the importance of getting this right.
“Those documents are about alerting their officers to all the types of groups and symbols that they may deal with in their day-to-day work. We need to acknowledge the regret that the police have shown over this error of judgment, and the fact that they are reviewing the document.”
After the document surfaced, the Guardian was approached by teachers and council workers across the country who had received Prevent training that referenced Extinction Rebellion.
A separate counter-terrorism document, a guide to symbols and logos, featured Greenpeace, Peta and other non-violent groups alongside National Action, Combat 18 and swastikas. It had been listed by schools, NHS Trusts and safeguarding boards as a Prevent resource material. A number of groups have threatened legal action.
City of London police labelled Extinction Rebellion one of its “key threats” in a counter-terrorism assessment and provided awareness training on the climate crisis group across the capital, resulting in “intelligence” tip-offs.
Police chiefs have insisted they do not consider Extinction Rebellion and other non-violent groups to be extremists or terrorists and the documents were intended to help officers distinguish between groups of interest and others.

-------------------------------------------------------

My Comments :

1. The world wide power of the fossil fuel industry - to try and misinform the world about the impact of burning it's environmentally hazardous products -  can hardly be overestimated.

2. They even try - and rather successfully one might conclude - to install governments that are fossil fuel friendly, such as the election of Trump and the GOP seems to gave proven conclusively.

3. Security agencies seem to be increasingly the all too willing auxiliaries of the industry in their struggle to prevent our planet to be saved from destruction. 

4. Fighting democracy as such appears to have become the main strategy of the fossil fuel power elite.