RSN August 14 Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Boardman writes: "It's not as though we lack a recent example of a president in panic launching stupid, destructive wars that piled up dead and debt that will haunt the country for a generation. It's a fair question - with no certain answer - to ask, if the United States had not engaged in mass killing in Afghanistan and Iraq, would we have ever heard of the Tsarnaev brothers?"

Richard Falk, UN special rapporteur for human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories. (photo: Wayne Schoenfeld/Reuters)
Richard Falk, UN special rapporteur for human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories. (photo: Wayne Schoenfeld/Reuters)


The Crucifixion of Richard Falk

By William Boardman, Reader Supported News

30 April 13

 

Who Is Richard Falk and Why Do Some People Hate Him for Stating the Obvious?

n a personal blog post titled "A Commentary on the Marathon Murders," Richard Falk begins by describing Boston's "dominant reactions" to the Patriots' Day bombing as being full of compassion for the victims, resolve to catch the perpetrators, and an urge to restore normalcy as swiftly as possible:

In this spirit, it is best to avoid dwelling on the gory details by darkly glamorizing the scene of mayhem with flowers and homage. It is better to move forward with calm resolve and a re-commitment to the revolutionary ideals that midwifed the birth of the American nation.

Such responses are generally benevolent, especially when compared to the holy war fevers espoused by national leaders, the media, and a vengeful public after the 9/11 attacks that also embraced Islamophobic falsehoods. Maybe America has become more poised in relation to such extremist incidents, but maybe not …

Writing on April 19, four days after the event, Falk was aware that one suspect was dead and the other still at large. His concern was that the president - and the country - not over-react to what, although he doesn't put it this way, would be a slow day in Baghdad.

What's to hate here? Falk, who taught international law at Princeton for forty years, is calling for a rational rather than a rash response.

Why Would Anyone Think a President Might Stampede the Country Into War?

It's not as though we lack a recent example of a president in panic launching stupid, destructive wars that piled up dead and debt that will haunt the country for a generation. It's a fair question - with no certain answer - to ask, if the United States had not engaged in mass killing in Afghanistan and Iraq, would we have ever heard of the Tsarnaev brothers?

But Falk's call for reasoned restraint, largely ignored in most media, evoked a storm on the right. A week later, on April 26, DemocracyNOW reported the reaction this way, under the headline "U.N. Official Condemned for Highlighting Role of U.S. Policy in Boston Attacks."

A United Nations official is facing calls for his ouster following his comments about the role of U.S. policy in the Boston Marathon bombings. Richard Falk [is] U.N. special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories….

Officials in Canada and Britain as well as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice have called for Falk to be fired.

A Call to Reason Strikes Some As Anti-Semitic - Really!

Falk's blog post, over 1,500 words, covered a lot of ground and challenged much conventional wisdom, past and present. His concern was how the past might affect the present, and how the present might differ from the past:

Obama came to Washington as outspoken opponent of torture and of the Iraq War. He also arrived after the failed wars of Afghanistan and Iraq, which had devastated two countries, seemingly beyond foreseeable recovery, while adding nothing to American security, however measured. These unlawful wars wasted trillions expended over the several years during which many Americans were enduring the hardships and pain of the deepest economic recession since the 1930s.

In other words, temporarily at least, the Beltway think tanks and the government are doing their best to manage global crises without embarking on further wars in a spirit of geopolitical intoxication….

Accusing the reformed alcoholic President Bush of another kind of drunkenness might have elicited some rejoinder from the right. But it didn't. The kernel of Falk's offense was here:

At least it seems that for the present irresponsible and unlawful warfare are no longer the centerpiece of America's foreign policy as had become the case in the first decade of the 21st century, although this is far from a certainty.

The war drums are beating at this moment in relation to both North Korea and Iran, and as long as Tel Aviv has the compliant ear of the American political establishment, those who wish for peace and justice in the world should not rest easy.

Who Wants America's Next War? Where? And How Soon?

Falk was not attacked for omitting the loudest war drums of all - beating for Syria. Falk's offense was disparaging Tel Aviv, despite the obvious reality in recent years that Israel has been nudging the U.S. toward war against Iran and/or Syria.

But he wasn't finished. Falk then noted what he called the "taboo" against "any type of self-scrutiny by either the political leadership or the mainstream media" -- just the sort of scrutiny he was attempting. And Falk cited hopefully several callers to public radio who expressed similar concerns about the relationship of civilian-killing drone strikes or years of torturing prisoners to the "retribution" (as one of the callers characterized it) of the Boston bombing.

Falk asked: "Should we not all be meditating on W.H. Auden's haunting line: 'Those to whom evil is done/do evil in return'?"

Falk's attackers made little attempt to engage his argument on its merits. Instead they accused him of some version of "blaming the Boston Marathon bombings on the U.S. and Israel" (i.e., Heritage Foundation, Breitbart.com, Haaretz, Jewish Chronicle, Wall Street Journal, FoxNews, et alia, apparently led by UN Watch, an Israeli-leaning group which has been attacking Falk for years for his defense of Palestinians). The most-quoted line from Falk's blog in support of the charge against him was this:

The American global domination project is bound to generate all kinds of resistance in the post-colonial world. In some respects the United States has been fortunate not to experience worse blowbacks, and these may yet happen, especially if there is no disposition to rethink US relations to others in the world, starting with the Middle East.

Who Decided That Truth Was Offensive? And Should Be Suppressed?

And how is this, or any part of it, not a truism? Is there not an ongoing American project of global domination? Is it not even welcomed and encouraged by quite a few other countries? Has the United States not been fortunate to suffer little compared to the suffering it has imposed? Does anyone really think it's not a good idea to rethink US relations to the rest of the world?

Falk's critics generally don't acknowledge these questions; much less do they attempt to provide cogent answers. Their game is demonization, as writers in both Counterpunch (Jeremy Hammond, who published Falk's blog in his Foreign Policy Journal) and the American Conservative (Scott McConnell, founding editor) have detailed.

The people demonizing Falk have been at it for years, and the reason is simple: he has been critical of Israel.

Since Obama's 2009 speech in Cairo, as Falk sees it, Israel has been pushing back against any fundamental change and Obama has been in the midst of "an accelerating back peddling in relation to opening political space in the Middle East. Now at the start of his second presidential term, it seems that Obama has given up altogether, succumbing to the Beltway ethos of Israel First…. Such obsequious diplomacy was a disappointment even to those of us with low expectations in what the White House is willing [to do] to overcome the prolonged ordeal of the Palestinian people."

Are America's "Revolutionary Ideals" Even Relevant Anymore?

Falk concludes essentially as he began, with his concern for the nation to somehow re-commit itself to the revolutionary ideals that made the United States possible in the first place:

Aside from the tensions of the moment, self-scrutiny and mid-course reflections on America's global role is long overdue. Such a process is crucial both for the sake of the country's own future security and also in consideration of the wellbeing of others.

Such adjustments will eventually come about either as a result of a voluntary process of self-reflection or through the force of unpleasant events. How and when this process of reassessment occurs remains a mystery. Until it does, America's military prowess and the abiding confidence of its leaders in hard power diplomacy makes the United States a menace to the world and to itself.

… bipartisan support for maintaining the globe-girdling geopolitics runs deep in the body politic, and is accompanied by the refusal to admit the evidence of national decline. The signature irony is that the more American decline is met by a politics of denial, the more rapid and steep will be the decline….

We should be asking ourselves at this moment, "how many canaries will have to die before we awaken from our geopolitical fantasy of global domination?"

For his efforts, Falk has been variously called "grotesque," "anti-American," "anti-Semitic" and "a self-hating Jew."

Most Countries Maintained a Diplomatic Silence on the Falk Matter

Among some diplomats, however, their reactions gave little indication that officials had read the original text.

U.S. Ambassador to the UN (and would-be Secretary of State) Susan Rice apparently tweeted on April 23, in response to an appeal from UN Watch, which has been campaigning against Falk since he was first appointed to his UN position in May 2008: "Outraged by Richard Falk's highly offensive Boston comments. Someone who spews such vitriol has no place at the UN. Past time for him to go."

Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird issued a statement on April 24 calling for Falk's removal from his UN post and saying in part:

Once again, United Nations official Richard Falk has spewed more mean-spirited, anti-Semitic rhetoric, this time blaming the attacks in Boston on President [Barack] Obama and the State of Israel.

There is a dangerous pattern to Mr. Falk's anti-Western and anti-Semitic comments. The United Nations should be ashamed to even be associated with such an individual.

The British Mission to the UN issued an April 24 press release:

The UK objects strongly to recent remarks made by UN Special Rapporteur for the Palestinian Territories, Richard Falk, linking the Boston bombings to "American global domination" and "Tel Aviv". This is the third time we have had cause to express our concerns about Mr Falk's antisemitic remarks….

Higher levels of these governments have remained silent.

And Falk appears secure in his role as U.N. special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories through the end of his mandate in mid-2014. As FoxNews somewhat bitterly reported: "The United Nations official who angered critics by blaming the Boston Marathon bombing on 'American global domination' will keep his post, because not enough other countries took offense at his comments."

And What If Falk Had Said Anything Like What They Said He Said?

The distortions and lies of those attacking Falk were detailed at significant length (28 pages) on a web site called Mondoweiss on April 25. The site is run by Phan Ngyuen, self-described as "a Palestine solidarity activist based in New York." He notes that after Falk responded to a direct inquiry from the Jewish Chronicle in London, the Jewish Chronicle revised its initially harsh headline on the story. Answering the question whether he had suggested that Israel was responsible for the Boston bombing, Falk wrote:

I never suggested such a connection. My reflections were only a commentary on focusing all attention on the wrongdoing of the perpetrators, and avoiding self-scrutiny as to why the United States, more than elsewhere, was the target of such extremist behavior.

This has been a national characteristic ever since the atomic bombs were dropped at the end of World War II, and before as well. It does not lead to any kind of learning experience that might make the world a less menacing place to inhabit.


William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+75 # jmac9 2013-04-30 14:06
This is a strange misprint from RSN as the short article states nothing of its headline so, I will take the headline and make the response from the situation Mr. Falk has found himself:

Mr. Falk mentions the truth:

America's history of abuse of Islamics made 9-11 and now Boston type of response happen.

America is a torture nation. Guantanamo prison a torture facility with all Islamic prisoners.

America's military support of Israeli terrorism of Islamic Palestinians has inflamed extreme Islamic resistance.

America's illegal invasion of Iraq and its killing of Afghani civilians has aggravated not only Islamic militants but also made Afghanis turn against the US military presence.

America and it seems some Americans don't want to face the reality of -
how did all this 'war on terror' come about?
What was the USA policy that so angered Islamics that they needed to attack?

1953, Eisenhower 'regime changes' Iran - US dictator Shah of Iran - SAVAK- the US trained police- to torture and murder Iranians who rebel against the US dictator.

Israel - the US is the main money bags and sole military supplier that keeps Israeli terrorism against Islamic Palestinians.
Hello - 9-11...Boston.. .
 
 
+5 # robcarter.vn 2013-05-01 19:37
First Class Comments from Jmac9 & Boardman. USA spends a fortune pandering to Israel & their USA Crop. War industry 1% hoarders. At the same time proselytizing to the world how to be a good Judeo/Christian follower. Then they ignore the Bible very appropriate message to USA "as you sow, so shall you reap. Pander to Shah, or Marcos types and the same will return in hatred rewards.
 
 
+5 # robcarter.vn 2013-05-01 19:52
PS: Eisenhower Gnl. started it with kissing French arses ignoring Vietminh Support with OSS Radio op American in Giap/Ho's jungle base, rescuing USA airmen, then betrayed to reinstall French colonial puppet King Bao Dai & Diem. Refusing the FDR Cairo resolve they would referenda what they want. Eisenhower bluffed limp wristed Truman with a "Domino" theorem, same as GOP now with "Trickle down" meaning "trickle out" and "Entitlements" to lump low socio/economic benefits so they look bigger and splitting Defenbce cost, maintenance & Capital or HSA or CIA to make militarization cost look smaller for the upper 1% windfalls. That's USA Politics at their best. Lies and lies.
 
 
+2 # FDRva 2013-05-01 21:56
The author leaves out a couple of things in his analysis of terrorism-parti cularly 9-11.

1)The decadent Saudis royals...

and
2) the Brit agencies who have always run royal 'Saudi' Arabia.

Maybe the ever-imperialis t Brits would like to 'regime-change' the USA system--not just minor power Syria??
 
 
+76 # Unicorn144 2013-04-30 15:17
This is a writer whose respect and love for America is overlooked because he will not toe the line of "my country: right or wrong", as we used to say: "my mother...drunk or sober.."; especially accurate in explaining George Bush as a recovered alcoholic; now showing us he was drunk on something even better: power...Iraq being a great example
 
 
+20 # cwbystache 2013-05-01 07:14
There is that oh-so-important second half of the 1872 quote that one rarely gets to hear. Without it, we declare ourselves no more than goose-steppers, but with it, we realize that letting whatever we do go without examination and then criticizing our act if it's evil, is downright unpatriotic:

"My country, right or wrong; if right to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."
 
 
+8 # MichaelArchAngel 2013-04-30 22:18
It is a sad state of human affairs that leads people to knowingly harm others. I almost always feel as sad or sadder for the perpetrators as I do for the deceased.
 
 
0 # BobbyLip 2013-04-30 22:19
No, no, no, Mr Falk, they hate us for our freedom.
 
 
+11 # dkonstruction 2013-05-01 08:54
Quoting BobbyLip:
No, no, no, Mr Falk, they hate us for our freedom.


So, the Iranians made a revolution (and in the process seized our Embassy and took American hostages) because they "hate us for our freedom" and not because we overthrew their democratically elected President in 1953 and installed the dictator, Shah, who then ruled brutally for 30+ years). And, of course they hated us so much that they were willing to negotiate with us to free the hostages in return for weapons.

And, Osama Bin Laden "hated us for our freedom" and not because we had the US military on Saudi soil (even though this was his first beef with us which he publicly stated many times)?

And if the Taliban "hate us for our freedom" why were they negotiating with us to strike a deal to partner with us to build the trans-Afghanist an oil pipeline (the negotiations only failed after the Taliban refused to turn over Bin Laden as part of the deal)?

It's not who we are but rather what we, the US does and have been doing in the region for at least 60 years if not longer.
 
 
+3 # BobbyLip 2013-05-01 10:45
Thanks, DKon, for listing some prime examples, which I find tedious to do. As well, they hate us because what they do is "terrorism" and barbarity, but what we do is "response" and collateral damage. They state outright their goals. We dissemble: "It's not about the oil." They hate us because our claim of exceptionalism gives us the right to kill wherever, whenever, whomever we will. They hate us because Jesus loves us best.
 
 
+24 # Walter J Smith 2013-04-30 23:55
It is difficult to imagine a more precise stating of the issue: "Aside from the tensions of the moment, self-scrutiny and mid-course reflections on America's global role is long overdue. Such a process is crucial both for the sake of the country's own future security and also in consideration of the wellbeing of others."

And the primary explanation for why this issue is so starkly obvious to anyone who cares to grasp it is also easy to clarify: the leadership of both of the US's major political parties worship the money they get by pretending at US public expense to worship and adore and whore on behalf of Israel, while devoting all their remaining time to protecting and subsidizing, again, as the public expense, the entire, massively corrupt interlocking directorate regime now running Wall Street's biggest and most dysfunctional corporations.

This, too, is obvious. Matt Taibbi and others have been revealing the details for years.

Is anybody home in the US?
 
 
+13 # cwbystache 2013-05-01 07:22
Oh yes, somebody's home, but the lights aren't on. Sen. Joe McCarthy thought we were using too much electricity ...
 
 
+8 # Thomas Martin 2013-05-01 00:16
Well, violence does beget violence, and we should be looking back to find a "first cause" if there is one, and then eliminate it, don't you think?
 
 
+31 # Robyn 2013-05-01 00:44
The United States is simply reaping what it is sowing, that is why there is why the world is becoming less sympathetic to what is happening.
When you see images of American soldiers shoving rifles into the faces of sobbing children, when you see the corpses of the innocent after being killed by a drone, when you hear of the torture and illegal imprisonment of people simply because they tried to defend their country, when you see the police attack and pepper spray their own citizens because people are sick of the inequality and the preferential treatment that the 1% gets, it is easy to just shrug and say, 'well, it was bound to happen.'
Sounds harsh? Perhaps but maybe Obama might come to realize that the world is tired of these endless futile wars and the constant interference of America in foreign countries to serve their own interests.
Notes come due and when they do, this is what happens.
 
 
+6 # Robyn 2013-05-01 00:44
The United States is simply reaping what it is sowing, that is why there is why the world is becoming less sympathetic to what is happening.
When you see images of American soldiers shoving rifles into the faces of sobbing children, when you see the corpses of the innocent after being killed by a drone, when you hear of the torture and illegal imprisonment of people simply because they tried to defend their country, when you see the police attack and pepper spray their own citizens because people are sick of the inequality and the preferential treatment that the 1% gets, it is easy to just shrug and say, 'well, it was bound to happen.'
Sounds harsh? Perhaps but maybe Obama might come to realize that the world is tired of these endless futile wars and the constant interference of America in foreign countries to serve their own interests.
Notes come due and when they do, this is what happens.
 
 
+21 # unitedwestand 2013-05-01 00:48
"how many canaries will have to die before we awaken from our geopolitical fantasy of global domination?" What is really discouraging is that the United States doesn't and never has (it seems) truly supported countries that were truly trying to be Democracies.

I would love to see the US totally not have anything to do with countries that are abusive to their citizens such as Saudi Arabia who think women are lower than weasels, or countries that are knowingly committing genocide and we know it and still give them billions annually, no questions asked of what they do with it.

I'm shouting at the wind as things seems to have gone way wrong in this country and daily I feel sadder and sadder.
 
 
+15 # Akeel1701 2013-05-01 01:42
America - what an Orwellian nightmare!
 
 
+26 # tm7devils 2013-05-01 02:04
The morally bankrupt idiots who make the ad hominem attack on Mr. Falk should be stripped of 'their' positions.
Mr. Falk berated only the Israeli government for their policies - he did not denigrate the Israeli people because they are Jews(anti-semitism).
I have berated my government for attacking a sovereign nation (Iraq) - does that mean I am anti-me (Anti-American) ?
 
 
+18 # Bruce-Man-Do 2013-05-01 05:00
It concerns me that ANY criticism that mentions Israeli policy as a contributing factor, let alone, say, naming Israel as culpable for Palestinian suffering or calling out the American government's subservience to pro-Israeli interests is considered "anti-Semitic". Without the ability to examine problems rationally and HONESTLY, we can harbor no hope of engaging in "any kind of learning experience that might make the world a less menacing place to inhabit".
 
 
+4 # NOMINAE 2013-05-02 01:36
Quoting Bruce-Man-Do:
It concerns me that ANY criticism that mentions Israeli policy as a contributing factor, let alone, say, naming Israel as culpable for Palestinian suffering or calling out the American government's subservience to pro-Israeli interests is considered "anti-Semitic". Without the ability to examine problems rationally and HONESTLY, we can harbor no hope of engaging in "any kind of learning experience that might make the world a less menacing place to inhabit".


And isn't it just a SCREAM that Israel responds to ANY criticism of it's treatment of the Palestinians as "Anti-Semitic"?

How *blindly* crazy is *that* ? Arabs (including Palestinians) are ALSO SEMITIC PEOPLE ! Israel needs to find a NEW rock to hide behind, and another economy to drain !
 
 
+8 # MidwestTom 2013-05-01 07:01
Falk did not mention one obvious change that would drastically decrease our chances of entering another war; simply require that all those who aspire to high office, both elected and non-elected in our government be citizens of the United States ONLY. One cannot serve two masters, or two countries.
 
 
+15 # futhark 2013-05-01 07:17
Not all Jews are Zionists. Not all Zionists are Jews.

As long as support for Zionism is a primary tenant of American foreign policy, we can expect to incur hostility from Islamic people.
 
 
+2 # abdullahiedward 2013-05-02 01:55
Thanks for making this distinction. Most people, unfortunately don't look at things this way and that's at least half the problem.
 
 
+14 # kalpal 2013-05-01 07:19
Alas and alack truth telling is taboo except by court jesters who are also excoriated for daring to point out and placing in the light of days lies, distortions and decptions.

We Americans deny that we are doing anything that is less than honorable and upright even while the nation's leadership is indulging in massively felonious and corrupt activities.

I must sadly live with the notion that this unlikely to change. The court jesters will keep making fun and some will take deep umbrage at the truths the jesters keep spouting because it is insulting to have the lies you live by called by their rightful name.
 
 
+10 # toddao 2013-05-01 07:26
It is hard to make a person understand something, when their job depends on them not understanding what you are trying to say. I cannot remember who made this statement, but it sums up what the major problem is living in a capitalist oligarchy. As long as monied interests dictate policies, foreign and domestic, trying to explain empathy for the entire human race is an exercise in futility.
 
 
-12 # Rick Levy 2013-05-01 07:58
"It's a fair question - with no certain answer - to ask, if the United States had not engaged in mass killing in Afghanistan and Iraq, would we have ever heard of the Tsarnaev brothers?"

So 10 years after the start of these wars in Iraq and Afghanistan two brothers who aren't from Iraq or Afghanistan take it into their heads to commit murder and mayhem and Boardman finds this reason--if in fact that was their reason--as justification for their atrocities against innocent people? And don't give that lame excuse that the American government does the same thing to others. Two wrongs don't make a right.
 
 
+7 # engelbach 2013-05-01 14:53
Can you read your own quoted passage?

"With no uncertain answer."

Falk is asking, not answering, the question.

And you can't wait to attack him for it.

Pathetic.
 
 
-3 # Rick Levy 2013-05-01 19:24
Can't you read the passage? It was "with no certain answer", not "uncertain answer".

But obviously Falk's inclusion of the former was a ruse, because his implication is that the answer was certain and justified, else he wouldn't have brought up that angle angle in the first place.
 
 
+4 # abdullahiedward 2013-05-02 01:58
Tell that to the Israelis!
 
 
+2 # MidwestTom 2013-05-01 07:58
I can fully understand his argument for the United States versus Muslims. However, he does not address the Muslim attacks in countries that have no association with the Unites States, such as Mali, Nigeria, Chad, and Sudan. There the terrorism appears to be purely religious based.

I have been to Nigeria several times over the past decade. Just five years ago you could visit the Northern, majority Muslim states, and feel perfectly safe. But about 4 years ago a group of young radicalized Muslims started targeting Christians to drive them out of predominately Muslim areas. This targeting included beatings, killings, and in one case setting alight a Catholic church on Sunday morning, shooting those that tried to leave, and burning to death 67 who did not leave the church.

None of the leaders in the Muslim north condemned the violence. The impression of tacit approval has only escalated the violence on both sides. Full fledged religious war cannot be ruled out, and the US has nothing to do with it.
 
 
+5 # abdullahiedward 2013-05-02 02:02
Sadly Tom your take on the Nigerian situation bears a strong western/christi an bias.
As for your opening point these are not purely religious:- In Mali you ignore the perennial marginalization of the Tuaregs in the north, in Nigeria, Chad and Sudan it's the oil!
 
 
+9 # geraldom 2013-05-01 08:21
The United States, whether it be under a Democratic president or a Republican president, conveniently puts on its blinders as to the massive number of times that we have illegally caused the deaths of huge numbers of indigenous people in other countries either by direct action of the United States itself or as a result of indirect action in support of dictatorships that follow our every whim.

The United States supported virtually every coup in Central and South America over the past three decades at least in which we were behind the overthrow of Democratically- elected leaders, including the most recent ones in Honduras and Paraguay which has led up to the deaths of so many innocent people, men, women, and children.

I also accuse the United States, my own country, in intervening in the past two presidential elections in Mexico as well as the most recent presidential election in Venezuela.

The United States has no moral or ethical right to judge other people or other countries whose leaders we don't like for atrocities committed by those countries.

The only reason why the United States has gotten away with this is because we are the 500 pound Gorilla in the room. The United Nations, which we now fully control under it current Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, and the rest of the so-called western world allows the United States to determine who is good and who is bad in the world today, and who shall have sanctions placed against them and who shouldn't.
 
 
+4 # abdullahiedward 2013-05-02 02:05
Thanks for this Harold. Anyone who takes the time to research what you have said would undoubtedly totally understand and support you.
 
 
+2 # mclaire26 2013-05-01 08:23
The Boston Massacre is of course tragic and i agree with Mr Falk in every way but 1. the older brother was grandiose, dedicated to "winning" in sports,frustrat ed by the difficulties in obtaining citizenship,fur ious when he couldn't compete for lack of citizenship. He could have shown his fury in many ways. he blew up athletes who were citizens in the most sadistic way.his relationship with the brother was a "dyad' he was a psychopath in every way and a sadist.they looked for the wrong motive.
 
 
+12 # rhgreen 2013-05-01 08:30
Falk is only saying what other knowledgeable people have said for a long time, with good evidence. Andrew Bacevich, Chalmers Johnson, Noam Chomsky, Gore Vidal, Kurt Vonnegut, Tony Judt, Stephen Kinzer, John Cooley, Linda McQuaig, Gideon Levy, Greg Palast, David Grossman, Glenn Greenwald, and Clyde Prestowitz are just a few. Obviously from the names some of these authors are Jewish, and some of those are Israeli. (Please skip the nonsense that they are "self-hating Jews".) You can also read online articles in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.

It is the people named in this article who are criticizing Falk, that should resign or be fired.
 
 
+10 # humanmancalvin 2013-05-01 08:50
The at the time much vilified Malcolm X was reported to have been quoted: "Malcolm X declared it payback for America’s violence in the world, a case of “chickens coming home to roost.” at hearing of the assassination of then president J F Kennedy."
White America was already calling for the head of the Black Muslim Minister Malcolm X. I see a parallel drawn here with Richard Falks commentary.
It was just about yesterday that if you were found protesting the illegal & unprovoked invasion of Iraq By President Bush then you were categorized as not just being one of "us", but as one of "them." There were calls to strip American citizenship from those that dared not support Bush's Holy War for Truth, Justice, & the American Way; a line stolen from the comic book hero Superman. The Iraqi invasion also resurrected the 60's call of "America, Love it or leave it."
While I despise the Boston bombers from deep within my Bostonian heart, I find that it is no reflection on Muslim Americans, Muslims here on Visa's or Muslims as a whole around the world. I may find that it is a reflection of American government policies & that as Malcolm X so bravely said it may be a case of chickens coming home to roost.
 
 
+2 # abdullahiedward 2013-05-02 02:07
You got that right calvin!
 
 
+6 # hillwright 2013-05-01 08:54
A few days after the 9/11 attacks a former FAA Security Official (from the Clinton administration) was interviewed about the attacks. He said that the attacks would have never occurred if the US had an even-handed approach to Israel and the Palistinians.
 
 
+2 # abdullahiedward 2013-05-02 02:09
And how long has Clinton been out of office and this comment has still not been favorably commented or acted upon. More Bostons' will follow because of it, you can be sure.
 
 
+9 # Deboldt 2013-05-01 08:59
The well groomed talking heads froth with self-righteous wrath
calling for retribution against the Boston cowards (as well they should.) I
would just like to see a little more fairness and balance in calling
for Obama's head or Bush's head or the head any of our other highly
placed terrorists for their own criminal offenses.

In Gillo Pontecorvo's classic "Battle of Algiers," one of the
"terrorists" is questioned about his ethics.

"Journalist: Don't you think it's a bit cowardly to use women's
baskets and handbags to carry explosive devices that kill so many
innocent people?

Ben M'Hidi: And doesn't it seem to you even more cowardly to drop
napalm bombs on defenseless villages, so that there are a thousand
times more innocent victims? Of course, if we had your airplanes it
would be a lot easier for us. Give us your bombers, and you can have
our baskets."
 
 
+6 # Kootenay Coyote 2013-05-01 08:59
There was a major crucifixion about 2,000 years ago: of someone else who told the truth about occupying empires & domestic corruption. So, obviously, telling the truth is a Bad Thing. As for my immensely regrettable present Canadian government, or mis-government: Baird is a Bibi-kissing fundamentalist who will lie or abuse anyone he pleases, & fact has nothing to do with his behaviour. That is the same government whose response to concerns about the Boston bombing & the planned Toronto bombing was "I think, though, this is not a time to commit sociology...” & “"The root causes of terrorism is terrorists,..": bright minds here, folks.
 
 
+10 # angelfish 2013-05-01 09:27
They have been dancing naked in the streets for so long, they have lost the ability to realize that the "Emperor" is NOT the only one! They are ALL as naked as jaybirds! Vilifying Mr. Falk for speaking the truth is a form of denial that has been KILLING Truth, as well as this Country, for a generation.
 
 
+9 # Kenwood 2013-05-01 09:39
After 9/11 it would have been difficult for an American president to avoid a counter attack. But the invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq was foolish.
We should note that Falk's position as UN Rapporteur was made by the United Nations Human Rights Council, not by the USA. He does not represent the USA there and must be free to report as he sees fit.
 
 
+2 # abdullahiedward 2013-05-02 02:12
Sadly Kenwood, your comment that Mr. Falk does not represent the USA is completely true. Had he been, he would never have been allowed to make such statements as he did.
 
 
0 # reiverpacific 2013-05-04 21:37
Quoting Kenwood:
After 9/11 it would have been difficult for an American president to avoid a counter attack. But the invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq was foolish.
We should note that Falk's position as UN Rapporteur was made by the United Nations Human Rights Council, not by the USA. He does not represent the USA there and must be free to report as he sees fit.

A counter-attack, --- where?
Iraq had nothing to do with it; most of the perpetrators were Saudi and Domwits was too cosy with these medievalists. remember these revolting photos of him holding hands with one of the Saudi Royals -and the spiriting out of a group of them from Bluegrass field, Lexington, KY (presumably they were doing some horse-buying-, when US airspace wads closed?
If 9-11 hadn't happened, the bush cabal would have had to invent it, as one wise American said (I forget who) -and maybe did- as their ratings were dropping like a failed sitcom.
So again, attack whom?
It's all too cosy.
But d'you think that they attack Saudi-Arabia.
 
 
+7 # reiverpacific 2013-05-01 09:54
" His concern was that the president - and the country - not over-react to what, although he doesn't put it this way,WOULD BE A SLOW DAY IN BAGDAD." (quote from article -capitals mine).
That is a great and au courant statement about the unravelling of Iraq since Hussein was (in my opinion) "Silenced".
Of course the US and UK establishments hates it, directly addressing the monumental screw-up by the invasion of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, perpetrated by a frat-brat ignoramus who screwed up everything he ever attempted before and during his lamentable presidency, supported by a greedy, ambitious, avaricious British PM, both swanning about and getting richer by revisionist speaking gigs, whilst others, like Falk and Bradley Manning are publicly lynched for being courageous, truly patriotic well-meaning actions and speech.
And remember that Saddam was once "Our bad guy" but had to be disposed of when he sought a measure of independence from his US taskmasters. I know that he was bit of a thug (encouraged as such by the US (remember that hand-shake photo with a smiling Rumsfeld?) but Iraq was formerly the best country to live in for women, the warlords who now run the nation controlled and "a slow day in Bagdad" obviously refers to this and the almost daily suicide bombings and still-growing death toll.
The two Boston killers are decidedly part of the inevitable "blow-back" of which we will undoubtedly feel more, for the actions of an incompetent nutter!
 
 
+12 # jwb110 2013-05-01 10:15
For Falk being intelligent is now a terrorist act. The world has been turned on it's head.
 
 
+6 # James Marcus 2013-05-01 12:15
The 'President' (not my, or your President), AND his Controller Buddies ( Kissinger, Breshzinski, Emmanuel, etc) are War Mongering Sociopaths, 'installed' to Spend The Money, Drive the Nation to Fear and Destruction and deceive everyone into blaming others.
Dangerous Sociopaths All...represent ing The Big Money...behind The Banksters; Not ...We, the People.
Dangerous, Sociopathic Liars and Mass Murderers.
Unfortunately, the same 'Forces, that 'installed' Them, also cotrol a Majority of Congress and The Supreme Court! and The Major Media (Sociopaths are Deeply Ignorant...but not Stupid!!)
...Wish I Were Wrong ...:-(
 
 
+7 # Charles3000 2013-05-01 13:09
Fear and hate for "them" is needed by the powers that be in order for them to maintain their status. Suppose, just suppose for a minute that we all felt totally safe and at ease and we were totally confident no one in this world would deliberately harm us and in fact, if we were in need or in trouble, that anyone near us would help us to overcome our problems. If we lived in that kind of world what kind of government/poli tical leader would be needed? What motivation would there be for hoarding wealth? A world like that would not support political power and wealthy autocrats. Just suppose....A society without a hate and fear target is a society thats is a threat to those who want political and monetary power. That is why we are taught to fear and hate.
 
 
+3 # NOMINAE 2013-05-02 01:55
Quoting Charles3000:
Fear and hate for "them" is needed by the powers that be in order for them to maintain their status. Suppose, just suppose for a minute that we all felt totally safe and at ease and we were totally confident no one in this world would deliberately harm us.... If we lived in that kind of world what kind of government/political leader would be needed? What motivation would there be for hoarding wealth? A world like that would not support political power and wealthy autocrats. Just suppose....A society without a hate and fear target is a society thats is a threat to those who want political and monetary power. That is why we are taught to fear and hate.


Great comment, and it is precisely such a system that *IS* the next step in human evolution, and that precise change is happening right now.

What we now witness is really the death throes of the "Dragon".

I used to think that the "little man" would have to fight the Giants, say, Monsanto.

Recently a HUGE Corporation called Kaiser Permanente brought suit against Monsanto. Kaiser Permanente provides health insurance at a lip-smacking profit. Monsanto is now making so many people sick, that it is costing Kaiser Permanente profits.

Kaiser is contractually obligated to FIX sick people, and Monsanto is negatively affecting THEIR "bottom line".

Kaiser Permanente V.S. Monsanto. The Giant Greed-mongers starting to cannibalize ONE ANOTHER ! What a lovely sight !
 
 
+4 # Replicounts 2013-05-01 20:24
Washington truth taboo on full display.
 
 
+4 # FDRva 2013-05-01 21:38
Dr.Falk--it must be acknowledged has--for many years--been closely associated with the Anglo-American Intelligence community--as are his most vocal critics. That community has abetted unspeakable atrocities.

Given what I know about Susan Rice--a very corrupt and ambitious individual in the orbit of Pres. Obama--who assisted British agencies in the, ahem, disposal of inconvenient African political figures--I will giving Dr Falk the benefit of the doubt--as will most intell community folks--this side of London.
 
 
0 # Activista 2013-05-03 11:11
Substantial article and substantial comments. Another mirror about censorship in US mass media/propagand a.
Why "liberal" NYT does not publish this article?
Wait how long it will take for the AIPAC/congress/ Obama to get rid of Richard Falk - especially now when destruction of Syria and Iran is on the agenda.
People wake up ...
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN