A Challenge to Bambee dela Paz and Other Bloggers

Bloggers who benefited from the power of blogging to correct the injustice done to them have a duty to pay society back. And the only way I can think of is for them to raise hell, too, about the injustice done to other people.

By Carlos H. Conde

There is injustice in the world. The family of Bambee dela Paz, the golfer whose father and brother were manhandled by the sons of Agrarian Reform Secretary and peace negotiator Nasser Pangandaman Sr., knows this only too well.

Bambee’s post about the mauling has since exploded on the Internet and single-handedly turned the table against a powerful family with a direct line to the president. This underscored once again the potential of the Internet to be used by victims to seek justice. Bambee and her family are lucky to have such a medium in their arsenal. I don’t think I can say the same thing about other poorer Filipinos who have been victimized by those in power.

Blogging is, by its very nature, a personal medium. This is why bloggers tend to write much more forcefully about an injustice if it hits them on a personal level, as it did the dela Pazes.

But as we’ve seen in this case – and in other cases as well, most notably the Brian Gorrell imbroglio – once you blog about a wrong done to you, the whole blogosphere runs to your side, offering help and encouragement, even vengeance on your behalf. Once this happens, the mission to correct an injustice becomes a lot less personal — it becomes a movement.

If there’s one thing the Pangandamans probably regretted by now, it is that they did not check first if the people they violated had a blog, which, as we’ve seen, can be mightier than the goons of a trapo. The Pangandamans, powerful and arrogant, have been shamed and are now pleading to bloggers to please stop the vitriol. For this alone, the dela Pazes have scored a victory.

Now, for Bambee and her supporters, the inevitable question arises: Is this it? We have demonstrated that we have so much power as bloggers, and is this it? What next?

The thing about blogging is that it is so personal that whatever you post on your blog naturally flows from your experiences. So one moment you raise hell about the arrogance of those in power and, the next, you wonder aloud why the lip gloss you just bought doesn’t seem to have enough sheen. Truth be told, movements like Bambee’s are few and far between. Much of the blogosphere is inundated with stuff that are irrelevant, inconsequential and, well, personal. Then again, as I pointed out above, that is the original nature of blogging.

The key word is “original” because, as we’ve seen, blogging is evolving. Blogging today is much different from blogging four or five years ago. Five years ago, blogs are like Twitter today: the medium is there and you’re still figuring out how to use it, so you publish just about anything, such as the crappy movie you and your girlfriend are watching or the hot chick you are ogling at the supermarket counter. These tell a thing or two about you or what you are doing but, in the larger scheme of things, they are meaningless and irrelevant. But is this all that we can do with a medium so evidently powerful?

Today, blogging, apart from being both a narcissistic and cathartic exercise of self-expression among millions, is a potent information tool. News organizations use it to complement their journalism (take note: complement, not supplant). Activists use it to promote their cause. Victims use it to right a wrong.

I guess what I’m saying is that bloggers like Bambee can – and should – use their newfound power and influence to right the wrongs done on other people. And, by God, there is so much injustice being committed out there! Yet, except in the circles of activists and human-rights advocates, I have not seen the same level of outrage in the blogosphere over the disappearance of Jonas Burgos, of Karen Empeno and Sherlyn Cadapan, of the atrocity done to Remegio Saladero Jr. and the hundreds of human-rights victims in the Philippines as we have witnessed in the Pangandaman incident.

A post thanking your multitude of supporters is nice but not quite enough. Bloggers who benefited from the power of blogging to correct the injustice done to them have a duty, I believe, to pay society back. And the only way I can think of is for them to raise hell, too, about the injustice done to other people, particularly the oppressed ones – those who are too poor and marginalized to even own a computer, let alone know that there is such a thing as a blog.

Carlos H. Conde is a journalist based in Manila.

Israel's Insane War

As the F-16s carry out their missions of death, the message to the world is that Israel will continue to live by the sword, as it has done for the past six decades, rather than risk the concessions and compromises which peace would require, notes Patrick Seale.

Israel’s war in Gaza is an act of political insanity. It is the product of a deeply disturbed society, able neither to curb its military arrogance nor calm its profound paranoia. The consequences are likely to be painful for Israel’s long-term prospects.

By radicalising the Palestinians, and by arousing great anger in the Arab and Muslim world, this savage war rules out the possibility of Israel’s peaceful integration in the region for the foreseeable future. That may even be its cynical aim, since Israel wants dominance, not peaceful coexistence.

As the F-16s carry out their missions of death, the message to the world is that Israel will continue to live by the sword, as it has done for the past six decades, rather than risk the concessions and compromises which peace would require.

The war has, in fact, confirmed what had long been apparent, namely that Israel has no interest in a negotiated peace. Peace means retraction, it means ceding territory, whereas Israel is still bent on expansion. That is what the continued theft of West Bank land and the mushrooming settlements are all about, together with the demolition of Palestinian homes, the security wall, the settlers-only road network, the stifling of the Palestinian economy by over 600 checkpoints, and countless other cruel vexations.

Peace is, indeed, the main casualty of this war. It is as dead as the corpses in Gaza. The two-state solution has been dealt a deathblow. The tentative Israeli-Syrian talks have been firmly shut down. The Arab Peace Plan, which offered Israel peace and normal relations with all 22 Arab states if it withdrew to its 1967 borders, has been buried in a welter of blood and bomb wreckage.

One of Israel’s war aims must surely have been to pre-empt any attempt by the incoming US administration of Barack Obama to re-launch the moribund peace process. Valuable months will now be lost clearing up the mess. As for the outgoing Bush administration, the blatant lies of Condoleezza Rice, who blamed the war solely on Hamas, must serve as the damning political epitaph of the most ineffectual US Secretary of State of modern times.

Israel has never liked Palestinian moderates, for the simple reason that concessions might have to be made to them. To avoid being drawn into negotiations, it has always preferred Palestinian radicals -- and when they were not there it has done everything it could to create them. “How can you negotiate with someone who wants to kill you?” is a familiar Israeli refrain.

The war on Gaza has confirmed Israel’s visceral rejection of any expression of Palestinian nationalism. It will kill to prevent it, as sixty years of wars, assassinations and massacres testify. Consciously or not, Israeli leaders seem to fear that any recognition of Palestinian aspirations undermines the legitimacy of their own national enterprise.

It may be that the war was launched precisely because Hamas has recently shown signs of moderation. Its key spokesmen -- including Khaled Mish‘al, head of its political bureau -- have expressed their readiness to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. To Israel’s dismay, they have begun to distance themselves from the movement’s 1987 charter, which calls for Israel’s destruction.

The Qassam rockets were a great embarrassment to the Israeli government. It was unable to stop them except by agreeing to a truce. The rockets angered an Israeli population notoriously blind to any suffering but its own. But, in truth, the rockets were no more than highly irritating pin-pricks. The figures speak for themselves. Fewer than 20 Israelis have been killed by Qassam rockets since Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005. In the same period Israel, displaying its usual astonishing indifference to Arab life, has killed some 2,000 Palestinians. Israeli state terror has been incomparably more lethal than anything Hamas could manage. The death toll continues to mount.

Israel never liked the truce with Hamas and chose not to respect its terms. Instead of easing the blockade on Gaza -- as it was meant to do -- it tightened it, reducing the crowded, suffering Strip to abject misery. And it unilaterally broke the truce by an armed incursion on 4 November, which killed several Hamas men. In retrospect, this action must be seen as a deliberate attempt to provoke Hamas into a violent response, and thus provide Israel with a casus belli.

Stopping the rockets fired by Hamas into the Negev was indeed only one of several reasons Israel went to war, and by no means the most important one. If anything, the rockets have provided Israel with a pretext for launching a war with far wider aims.

The principal aim of Israel’s all-out war on Hamas is to reaffirm the military supremacy over all its neighbours which the Jewish state has enjoyed since its creation in 1948. The war is therefore meant as a warning to Hizbullah in Lebanon, as well as to Syria and Iran -- and indeed to anyone who might dare challenge Israel’s predominance -- that they, too, could face the sort of devastating punishment Gaza is now enduring.

Deterrence -- one-sided, Israel-only deterrence -- lies at the heart of Israel’s security doctrine. It wants total freedom to hit, and never to be hit back. It relies on brute force to protect itself, and rejects any form of mutual deterrence. It is totally opposed to a regional balance of power which might force it to moderate its actions.

In recent years, however, Israel’s deterrent capability has been somewhat dented by challenges from Hizbullah, Hamas and Iran. Hizbullah held Israel to a draw in the 2006 Lebanon war, while Hamas’ rockets compelled a reluctant Israel to agree a truce. Even more seriously from Israel’s point of view, the United States resisted Israeli pressure to make war on Iran, whose nuclear programme Israel has insisted on portraying as an ‘existential’ threat. The truth is that if the Islamic Republic were ever to reach a nuclear threshold Israel’s freedom to strike its neighbours would very probably be curtailed.

Throughout the truce with Hamas, which started some six months ago on 19 June, Israel’s Defence Minister Ehud Barak devoted himself to planning for the war, which he and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni have now unleashed. Long and careful preparations for the assault were made in the months of relative quiet. The last thing Israel could accept was that Hamas might acquire any deterrent capability of its own, however minimal.

This is what Barak meant when he said that Israel’s intention was “totally to change the rules of the game.” Resistance to Israel of any sort is not to be allowed. Hamas has to be destroyed and rooted out of Gaza altogether. It remains to be seen what the longer-term consequences of this folly might be.

Israel goes to the polls on 10 February, a few short weeks from now. The outcome of the war could determine whether Barak, the murderous architect of the Gaza war, can claw back support for his Labour Party from Tzipi Livni’s Kadima and from Binyamin Netanyahu’s hard-right Likud.

It is tempting to see the war as little more than a cynical electoral ploy by Barak and Livni, aimed at enhancing their respective prospects and keeping Netanyahu at bay. In fact, all Israel’s political leaders gave their approval to the war, whatever their party affiliation. All are drunk with military power. All cheered the mounting Palestinian casualties. None seems able to come to terms with what a real peace might entail. Perhaps none of them can truly believe that Israel’s crimes can ever be forgiven or forgotten, and that they have no option, therefore, but to go on killing.

Patrick Seale is a leading British writer on the Middle East, and the author of The Struggle for Syria; also, Asad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East; and Abu Nidal: A Gun for Hire.

America's War On Islam - The "Fort Dix Five"

With world eyes on Gaza, the horrific carnage on the ground, innocent civilians being slaughtered, Israel's grievous crimes of war and against humanity, and its slow-motion genocide gaining speed, it's easy to forget America's war at home on Islam and its growing number of victims. This article highlights five recent ones - innocent young Muslim men called the "Fort Dix Five."

On December 22, The New York Times headlined: "5 Are Convicted of Conspiring to Attack Fort Dix" in reporting that a federal jury "convicted five men of conspiring to kill American soldiers at (the base) last year, but acquitted them of attempted murder."

After an eight-week trial, jurors deliberated for six days before returning a verdict. "The men, all Muslim immigrants (from) South Jersey or Philadelphia, face a maximum term of life in prison."

Sentencing is scheduled for April 22 for three defendants and April 23 for the others. Even The New York Times admitted that the "five defendants seemed (more like) South Jersey than seething jihadists" - based on their backgrounds, employment, normal activities, and trial evidence showing nothing out of the ordinary.

It's the latest example of post-9/11 witch-hunt justice against innocent Muslim victims - targeted for their faith, ethnicity, activism, prominence, benevolent charity, or whatever other motives the administration concocts for political advantage. As a result, growing numbers fill federal prisons for being Muslim at the wrong time in America. The "war on terror" is a jihad against them. Muslims everywhere are at risk. So are we all, and that won't change under Obama.

Charges Against the "Fort Dix Five"

On May 7, 2007, the FBI arrested the five on charges of plotting to kill US soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey. A June 5 DOJ press release stated:

"The five defendants are charged with conspiracy and other charges related to their plans to kill as many soldiers at the Army base as possible. A sixth man was indicted for aiding and abetting the illegal possession of firearms by three members of the group." The original Complaint was unsealed on May 8.

"One count against two of the defendants charges them with unlawful possession of machine guns - the AK-47s and M-16s they purchased and took possession of just before they were arrested by Special Agents of the FBI."

Prosecutors called the men "radical Islamists," and according to US Attorney Christopher J. Christie, "We intend to continue a vigorous prosecution of these defendants. Anyone who would plan such an attack should expect no less."

The six and charges against them are as follows:

Mohamad Ibrahim Shnewer (an ethnic Jordanian) on "conspiracy to murder members of the uniformed services (maximum statutory penalty of up to life in federal prison);"

Dritan Duka (an ethnic Albanian like his two brothers below) on "conspiracy to murder members of the uniformed services; unlawful possession of machine guns (maximum statutory penalty of 10 years in prison), two counts of being an illegal alien in possession of firearms (maximum statutory penalty of 10 years in prison);"

-- Shain Duka on "conspiracy to murder members of the uniformed services; unlawful possession of machine guns, two counts of being an illegal alien in possession of firearms;"

Eljvir Duka on "conspiracy to murder members of the uniformed services, one count of being an illegal alien in possession of firearms;"

Serdar Tatar (an ethnic Turk) on "conspiracy to murder members of the uniformed services;" and

Agron Abdullahu (an ethnic Kosovar) on "aiding and abetting the Duka brothers' illegal possession of weapons (maximum statutory penalty of 10 years in prison)." Abdullahu confessed and was sentenced to 20 months in prison for supplying the guns and ammunition in question. He'd already served 11 months and was released in October, according to his lawyer, Richard Coughlin.

The weapons transaction was "at a residence in Cherry Hill," New Jersey. "After the purchase from a cooperating witness," arrests were made.

In October 2007, Abdullahu pled guilty to weapons possession. A superceding January 15, 2008 indictment charged the other five men with the attempted murder of military personnel and weapons possession. According to US Attorney Christie at the time, "there is abundant evidence that the defendants fully subscribed to al Qaeda's jihadist ideology (and) were ready for martyrdom. We had a group that was forming a platoon to take on an army. They identified their target, they did their reconnaissance. They had maps. And they were in the process of buying weapons. This is a new brand of (homegrown) terrorism where a small cell of people can bring enormous devastation....They wanted to be jihadists."

The DOJ, Dominant Media, and Islamophobes Respond to the Convictions

A December 22 DOJ press release stated: "Five Radical Islamists (were) Convicted of Conspiring to Kill Soldiers at Fort Dix....announced Patrick Rowan, Assistant Attorney General for National Security, and Acting US Attorney Ralph J. Marra, Jr....These men planned, trained and ceaselessly talked unambiguously about their intention to ambush and kill US soldiers." Other "would-be terrorists of the homegrown variety (be alerted that we'll spend millions of taxpayer dollars to) find you, infiltrate your group, prosecute you and send you to federal prison for a very long time" - whether or not you're guilty.

The Washington Post highlighted the conviction of "five foreign-born Muslim men conspiring to kill US soldiers at Fort Dix and other military installations (never mentioned in the indictment) as part of what prosecutors charged was a plot to launch an Islamic "holy war" against the United States. Writer William Branigin emphasized their "plot" to use "automatic weapons (and) rocket-propelled grenades (also not mentioned) to kill as many US soldiers as possible.

Other comments included saying the "plot" began in January 2006, Osama bin Laden's "terrorist network" inspired it, the "cell" viewed "terrorist training videos glorifying the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and depicting the beheading of American military personnel..." When arrested in May 2007, "they were in the final stages of preparations....in addition to targeting Fort Dix, the cell discussed attacking other military installations, including Fort Monmouth, Lakehurst Naval Air Station, McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey, the US Coast Guard building in Philadelphia, and Dover Air Force Base in Delaware. Another potential target was the annual Army-Navy football game in Philadelphia...."

Branigin never questioned the legitimacy of clearly bogus charges on their face - that five young men with hand weapons (automatic or otherwise) would declare war on the US Army at any or perhaps all of the above locations. Instead he accepted the official explanation and reported it like in a straight press handout.

David Horowitz is a right wing ideologue, an opponent of the progressive left, and a prominent anti-Muslim hatemonger "spread(ing) fear, bigotry and misinformation," about Islam according to the media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR). It calls him "the Islamophobia movement's premier promoter....(as editor) via his website, FrontPage Magazine" and activities like his October 22 - 26, 2007 "Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week" that held "protests, teach-ins and sit-ins on more than 100 college campuses (to highlight) the threat posed by the Islamic crusade against the West."

On December 23, Front Page writer and Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer wrote about the Fort Dix Five, referred to the men as "jihad plotters," and said "They wanted to burst into Fort Dix and murder as many American soldiers as they could...." He commented on how Muslim community leaders "hurl(ed) reckless charges of entrapment (and should instead take) hard steps necessary to clean their own house."

"While Muslim and non-Muslim spokesmen have spilled oceans of ink since 9/11 asserting that Islam condemns 'terrorism' and the killing of 'innocents,' without defining what is meant by either term, no one has ever produced any examples of authoritative and orthodox Islamic religious scholars rejecting, on Islamic grounds, jihad violence against non-Muslims." It's about time they "institute(d) comprehensive and inspectable programs teaching against the jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism."

On December 23, Spencer's Jihad Watch (with no byline) mocked the kangaroo justice victims in its headline: "Muslims on Fort Dix jihadists - They wuz framed....It was all a joke....Oh Shnewer (one of the five about his explanation), you kidder! It then added various demeaning comments to clearly show disrespect for Islam.

Pat Robertson preaches hate and intolerance and his CBNnews.com leaves no doubt where it stands in a December 22 article by its "Terrorism Analyst," Erick Stakelbeck - titled "Fort Dix Jihadis Convicted." He called the convictions "A nice 'stockade stuffer' for the US government, just in time for the holidays," then added Islamophobic comments like this:

"....it doesn't take a brain surgeon to walk into a shopping mall, yell 'Allahu Akhbar,' and start firing a rifle at shoppers. Granted, it obviously helps to have a larger force behind you (for funding, guidance and training) if you are scheming to carry out an attack like the one planned on Fort Dix. But deadly intent, a gun and some explosives can get a motivated, committed jihadist a long way as well." Obviously for Stakelbeck, they're guilty, case closed.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) was founded "to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all. (It) fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals and protects civil rights for all" - or so it says. How does it act under its national director, Abraham Foxman.

Using anti-Semitism and a high moral agenda for cover, Waxman backs racial discrimination and nationalism. While preaching universal equality, he's for Jewish supremacy, the right of Israeli Jews to dominate Arabs, and to maintain a separate and unequal society.

On December 23, ADL "applauded the verdict convicting five would-be terrorists who conspired to kill American soldiers at New Jersey's Fort Dix last summer." ADL's national chair, Glen Lewy and Foxman issued this statement:

"The successful prosecution of the five terrorists for conspiring to kill American soldiers....is a testament to the dedication and hard work of teams of FBI investigators and Justice Department prosecutors who devoted enormous time, energy and passion to making our nation safer....In this case, justice has been served and our national security protected."

Imagine their comments if five Israeli Jews had been convicted on the same charges instead of Muslims.

No Plot, No Crime, So the FBI Invents Guilt with An Entrapment Sting Operation - Its Usual Modus Operandi to Ensnare the Innocent

At a Cherry Hill, NJ Circuit City store in January 2006, Mohamad Shnewer innocently wanted a home video transfered to DVD. It showed men shooting weapons at a Pocono Mountains firing range, playing paintball (an innocent game in which opposing teams try to eliminate opponents by marking them with water-soluble dye shot in capsules from air guns), and repeating Arabic phrases like Allah Akbar (meaning God is Greatest). The store clerk called the police. They notified the FBI. They began investigating and recruited two dubious informants to help.

Each knew nothing about the other. One was Besnik Bakalli, an ethnic Albanian, who falsely told defendants he was a Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) veteran - the US/Germany supported terrorist group recruited to destabilize Kosovo/Serbia in the 1990s. At trial, however, he testified that he fought for no group and knew nothing about Islam or extremists calling for jihad.

Mahmoud Omar was the other informant, an Egyptian-born used car salesman/mechanic on probation for bank fraud. He and Bakalli entered the US illegally and faced likely deportation or worse. They were easily recruited, so cooperated, and were well compensated for their efforts - thousands of dollars a month, and according to defense lawyers, Omar (from when recruited in March 2006) will have earned $238,000 for his efforts. NewJersey.com believes more - over $240,000 plus rent and other expenses, and, of course, leniency in handling their charges. Bakalli was used for a shorter period and reportedly was paid about $150,000. The FBI also relocated his parents to America as an added incentive to cooperate.

Its sting was to have both men befriend the defendants, wear a wire, egg them on with tough talk about their commitment to Islam, elicit negative views about the US military and war in Iraq and Afghanistan, incite a need for holy war in response, and suggest how to get weapons to "do something."

Hundreds of conversations were recorded and selectively played back at the eight week trial. In addition, Shnewer's house and car were bugged and rigged with hidden cameras for additional videotape accounts.

One conversation with defendant Tatar has Omar saying: "I want this country to pay the price for something they did to me" and then asked Tatar for help to get information about Fort Dix. He had no idea what he meant, yet Omar persisted and wanted Tatar to get him a map of Fort Dix. At one point, Tatar called the Philadelphia police about being pressured and voiced concern about something terror related.

Omar also organized so-called Fort Dix "reconnaissance missions" around the base's perimeter. In addition, he got two of the Duka brothers to buy firearms but not to commit terrorism or attack the Army base. At that point, they were arrested in Omar's apartment while buying inoperable rifles the FBI supplied for the sting.

What's clear from trial evidence is that no plot existed, no conspiracy, no intended crime, explicit rejections of violence, and without informant provocation no planned weapons purchase for any purpose. All five are innocent, unfairly targeted, entrapped, prosecuted, convicted, and the latest administration "war on terror" trophies from its scheme to incite fear.

The only trial evidence was their freely expressed hostile views about America's wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, sympathies for Islamic causes, and anger over how immigrants are treated in the US. None of this is illegal or incriminating, yet the defendants were convicted and face long incarcerations after sentencing, possibly for life.

Attorney Sam Schmidt represented one of the defendants accused in the 1998 US African embassy bombings. He explained how "The government (goes to extraordinary means) to find people (with) an antipathy to US policies (in the Middle East) and see which ones can get motivated, or angry enough (to be entrapped by the entreaties of an informant). Many of these cases appear to be the informant who is either working off a case to avoid going to jail or be deported or is seeking remuneration...."

They're used to entrap defendants, get them angry, and create the impression that they're willing to commit terrorism. To prove conspiracy, the government need only show that defendants appeared willing to commit a crime and did one thing (usually quite innocent) to use against them and convince a jury. No crime need be committed nor any detailed plans for one. In the Fort Dix case, prosecutors didn't have to prove a planned attack - only that defendants appeared willing or approved of US soldiers being attacked somewhere at some time.

With informants taping hundreds of conversations and training them to egg on targets, prosecutors can selectively use comments to make their case and intimidate juries to convict. In closing arguments, Shnewer's lawyer, Rocco Cipparone, said: "Omar led and led and pushed and pushed Mohamad as far as he could. But at the end of the day, all Mohamad did was talk and talk and talk. His actions - and inactions - speak more volumes than his words."

Transcripts also revealed that conversations included a mixture of English, Arabic, and Albanian, were filled with miscommunications, bravado, ambiguity and at times nonsense. At some points, the defendants seemed too scared to do anything. Clearly their intentions were non-violent.

For example, when they were supposedly shopping for weapons, one defendant worried that if someone is caught with a machine gun, he'll "be in deep s..t." And if anyone gets killed, "As Muslims, if we get caught, we all get sent away to f...ing Guantanamo Bay for 10 years with no court date....they can come to you in the f...ing morning when you are sleeping. And they don't f...ing play."

Despite their convictions, the government's indictment was vague on any intention to commit terrorism or that defendants' comments meant they planned it. The informants did the pushing while they just talked and nothing else. However, under US conspiracy law, if prosecutors can convince juries that defendants words implied actions they can get convictions.

According to former federal prosecutor and now executive director of the Center on the Administration of Criminal Law at New York University School of Law, Anthony Barkow: "A person is entrapped when he has no previous intention to violate the law and is persuaded to commit the crime by government agents. But if he's already willing to commit the crime (not applicable to the defendants), it's not entrapment if government agents convince him to do it."

Roger Williams University law professor Peter Margulies explains further that: "A virtue of American conspiracy law is it allows you to show conspiracy with relatively thin evidence. In Britain recently, they couldn't convict people in an airport bombing plot because they had to show that action was imminent. American law is more expansive than most other democracies in that respect."

Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson was the chief US prosecutor at the Nuremberg Nazi war criminal trials. In a subsequent 1949 case, he expressed concern that US conspiracy law "constitutes a serious threat to fairness in our administration of justice." It lets prosecutors "target the people it doesn't like," according to Margulies, do it as deviously as they wish, and unjustly convict the innocent.

That's Jim Sues' view, executive director of the New Jersey Chapter of Council on American-Islamic Relations, on the Fort Dix Five case. "Many people in the Muslim community see this as (another) case of entrapment. The evidence showed no real honest-to-God planning for an attack on Fort Dix (or anywhere else). The defendants were never (even) all in a room at one time with a map of the (base), plotting what they were going to do." They had no violent plans whatever. Nor did other unjustly convicted Muslim victims - persecuted to incite fear and justify America's foreign aggression against Iraq, Afghanistan and all Islam.

Since 9/11, around 150 defendants were convicted through 2007 and many more this year. It shouldn't surprise that perhaps all were innocent, unfairly targeted, unjustly convicted and sentenced to long punitive incarcerations in federal prisons. In some cases, (for the so-called "worst of the worst") to harsh confinement in Supermax ones that crush the human spirit, mind and body through isolation, cruelty, and physical abuse for years or even life.

It's the wrong time to be Muslim in America. Expect little change under the new administration. Foreign wars will continue. So will the "war on terror." Innocent Muslims will be targeted. Others as well, so today we're all as vulnerable as the "Fort Dix Five."

Mega Solar Power Plant Begins to Operate in Portugal

The most ambitious and innovative solar power project in the world kicked off Monday in this white-walled village in the southern Portuguese municipality of Moura, one of the most impoverished areas in the European Union.

The Acciona Energy S.A. company has put into service the Amareleja photovoltaic power plant, located 150 km south of Lisbon, which is capable of producing enough energy to supply 30,000 households in the south-central region of Alentejo.

Almost simultaneously, the mayor of Moura, José María Prazeres Pós-de-Mina, was selected as one of the ten finalists for the prestigious 2008 People of the Year award granted by OneWorld, a non-governmental news network that is one of the most highly-respected international organisations devoted to raising environmental awareness and promoting change.

The only requirement for nomination was that the candidates embody the values of OneWorld, which include human rights for all, fair distribution of the world's natural and economic resources, simple and sustainable ways of life, the right of every individual to inform and be informed, participation and transparency in decision-making, and social, cultural, and linguistic diversity.

Pós-de-Mina, who was born 50 years ago in Pías, another village in the municipality of Moura, keeps a low profile, but has nevertheless become famous throughout Europe as "the mayor of the future" for his pioneering work in renewable energy.

The grandson, son and nephew of prominent anti-fascist activists who were persecuted and incarcerated by Portugal’s 1926-1974 dictatorship, Pós-de-Mina became politically active at an early age when he joined the Union of Communist Students, an organisation that played a major role in the opposition to the dictatorial regime.

But his militant background did not prevent Pós-de-Mina from becoming a skilful businessman, and after earning a BA in business administration he took on the challenge of founding the Amper Solar power company, planting the seed for what is now the world’s largest solar energy plant.

Located in the Baldio da Ferraría, a 250-hectare sun-scorched plain, the plant was built at a cost of 410 million dollars in the sunniest area of Portugal, the European country with the greatest number of sunlight hours per year.

The reputation of this unassuming mayor of a small municipality of Portugal has transcended national borders, as he has come to be known as the architect of the most ambitious renewable energy project in the world. "It all happened without my even realising it," Pós-de-Mina confessed modestly when he learned that OneWorld described him as "the mayor of the future."

The Amareleja Power Plant project involves photovoltaic (PV) technology that uses semiconductors to convert the sun’s rays into electric power. Within a year, the plant will have an installed capacity of 46 megawatts (MW).

It is expected to be operating at full capacity by the year 2010, when it will produce 64 MW using 2,520 solar trackers supporting 262 modules with 268,000 PV panels producing 93 gigawatts/hour per year, generating sufficient electricity to power 30,000 homes.

The plant’s solar power production will contribute enormously to helping Portugal meet its greenhouse gas reduction commitments, drastically cutting carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 152,000 tons a year.

"This project is important for Moura and for Alentejo, but it is also important because of its contribution to the development of Portugal and its significance in Europe due to its size, as it will convert sunlight into 64 million watts," making it 12 times bigger than the largest solar power plant that exists today in the EU, which is located in Germany and produces five million watts, Pós-de-Mina told IPS in a recent interview.

At the same time, the municipality of Moura launched the Sunflower project, which involves a network of eight municipalities from eight different countries in Europe (Bulgaria, Britain, the Czech Republic, France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain) that seek to transform their towns into what the EU calls "Zero Carbon Communities" under its Intelligent Energy - Europe (IEE) programme for the promotion of alternative energy sources.

Sunflower’s goal is to "convert these EU communities into environments free of CO2 emissions by turning them into areas where only renewable energies are used," Pós-de-Mina added. The idea is to "conduct campaigns to raise awareness on the use of renewable energies and the benefits for the population," he said.

Pós-de-Mina’s work in Amareleja and the Sunflower project earned him the nomination for the OneWorld award. Both efforts began as a way of finding solutions to the area’s growing economic problems, but eventually turned into pioneer initiatives that serve as encouraging examples for the entire world.

For this pragmatic communist mayor and businessman, harnessing Alentejo’s abundant sunlight seemed like "the most obvious way" to develop alternative renewable energy sources that would in turn create jobs in a region where unemployment -- at 15 percent -- is twice the national average.

In 2007, the municipality of Moura sold the 88 percent stake it held in Amper Solar -- owner of the plant installation rights -- to the Spanish company Acciona, which has since become the sole shareholder in the solar plant, after the minority shareholders decided to follow the municipality’s example.

Portugal’s solar, wind, and wave energy projects have received unconditional backing from the European Commission, the executive body of the EU, which seeks to speed up the continent’s transition to a low-CO2 economy.

Until April 2004, Portugal’s solar and wind power generation was very low, in spite of the fact that the country is extremely sunny and windy.

The wind energy generated in Portugal prior to 2007 was in fact practically marginal. At present, this country of 92,000 square kilometres and 10.6 million inhabitants is one of the top wind power generators in the EU.

From 2004 to 2006, several wind power parks were built in Portugal, producing a total of 500 MW and putting this country in third place in the EU, after Germany (357,000 sq km and 82 million inhabitants), which produces 1,808 MW, and Spain (504,000 sq km and 46 million inhabitants), with a production of 1,764 MW, and ahead of Italy (301,000 sq km and 59 million inhabitants), which has a total production of 452 MW.

The change has been so drastic that Portugal went from being at the bottom of the EU’s renewable energy ranking to becoming one of the continent’s leading generators.