The United States government played a role in the death of Charles Horman and is thus complicit in his murder. The case against the government in detailed below:
1. The United States military and its intelligence agencies substantially aided the 1973 Chilean coup. There were many U.S. military personnel in the country in the days before and after the coup. This was documented by Mr. Horman himself in his journal. There is also the curious case of Andrew Babcock. He was present in Vina immediately after the coup. He told Mr. Horman that he was in Chile working on an assignment for the U.S. Navy that was now complete. It is our belief that Mr. Babcock was actually working for U.S. intelligence in support of the coup. The heavy involvement of agents of the U.S. government in the coup indicates the probability that they were aware of Mr. Horman’s arrest and execution.
2. United States Embassy personnel in Santiago willfully and intentionally stonewalled Mr. Horman’s wife and father when they sought assistance in his disappearance. They provided false and misleading information. They posited that Mr. Horman was in hiding or possibly had faked his own disappearance as a publicity stunt without providing any substantiation whatsoever. They stated that another American, Frank Terrugi, had been arrested and released by the Chilean authorities. They further stated that Mr. Terrugi had left the country. This was false as it was later discovered that Mr. Teruggi had been executed shortly after his arrest, as was Mr. Horman. It is our belief that the embassy staff was engaged in covering up the involvement of the American government in the coup.
3. According to a declassified State Department memo there was significant concern within the U.S. government over the role of American agents in Mr. Horman’s death. This memo indicated there is evidence that U.S. intelligence “played an unfortunate part in Mr. Hormans death”. This memo even holds out the possibility that U.S. agents were aware of Mr. Horman’
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Monday, January 12, 2009
Scenes From "Zinat"
The Iranian film “Zinat” tells the story of a young woman struggling with the social constraints of her village. She desires a career and a family, but that is forbidden. This conflict forces difficult choices on Zinat, her fiancée Hamed and their families.
Early in the film there is a scene with Hamed and his mother who is busy with domestic chores. When Hamed attempts to help draw water from the well his mother stops and scolds him for doing women’s work. She then informs Hamed that within a week of marrying his father she was doing all the chores. She then adds “Now you want to marry someone with no time for housework”.
This scene sets the stage for the film by illustrating the traditions of the village where Zinat and Hamed lived. Hamed’s mother had worked hard for decades and now expected to be able to retire in a sense by having a daughter-in-law who would take over the housework. When she finds out that Zinat intends to work she becomes bitter and presses for the local custom barring wives from working outside the home to be enforced.
Later in the film Zinat is told by her father she can no longer work. When she defies him he angrily retrieves her from the medical clinic. Zinat cannot resist seeing her patients though and pays a visit to a woman named Ashraf who is not home, but her children are. Zinat attempts to give an infant an immunization shot, but Ashraf returns and becomes angry. She tells Zinat to “get a husband” and chases her away.
The pressure to conform to the local mores is immense and comes not just from her and Hamed’s families, but from the village as a whole. When Zinat’s father discovers she has returned to work he becomes irate. He forces her into a room and strikes her. He then locks her in the room, which has bars on the window. She has become a prisoner literally and figuratively. She is locked into a social structure that offers no escape except through conformity.
Zinat returns to her family’s good graces when she dramatically turns her back on her career. After her father sets fire to her uniform, Zinat takes her briefcase and throws it into the flames. This sacrificial imagery shows the choice Zinat must make - a career or a family, but not both.
A turning point occurs when the now married Zinat is approached by Ashraf. Her daughter is gravely ill and is in desperate need of help. Hamed and his mother shoo Ashraf away. She refuses to leave and begs for assistance. Zinat cannot stand by and do nothing. She goes to the girl and Hamed reluctantly follows still resisting the idea of Zinat practicing medicine. However, when Zinat prevents the imminent death of the girl Hamed is transformed. He sees that Zinat has a passion in life and should be allowed to pursue it.
At the end of the film Hamed is shown standing next to a truck into which the sick child is being loaded to be transported to a hospital. Zinat climbs into the truck as well. Hamed turns to see his mother standing nearby. Hamed is forced to choose between his mother, the traditional past, and Zinat, the progressive future. This is reminiscent of the scene where Zinat chooses between a husband and a career. Hamed climbs into the truck and the closing scene shows his mother disappearing into the dust.
This is a good ending that makes an important point. The viewer can choose to stay rooted in the traditional past with all its restrictions on women or embrace a bright future where women are allowed to reach their full potential. However, if I were to rewrite the ending I would not make the choice so stark. Making Hamed choose between his mother and his wife is hard. I would have preferred to see Hamed give his mother the opportunity to join Zinat and himself in the bright future if she was willing to change herself. This would convey the message that social change does not mean that segments of society must be cast aside in the name of progress.
Early in the film there is a scene with Hamed and his mother who is busy with domestic chores. When Hamed attempts to help draw water from the well his mother stops and scolds him for doing women’s work. She then informs Hamed that within a week of marrying his father she was doing all the chores. She then adds “Now you want to marry someone with no time for housework”.
This scene sets the stage for the film by illustrating the traditions of the village where Zinat and Hamed lived. Hamed’s mother had worked hard for decades and now expected to be able to retire in a sense by having a daughter-in-law who would take over the housework. When she finds out that Zinat intends to work she becomes bitter and presses for the local custom barring wives from working outside the home to be enforced.
Later in the film Zinat is told by her father she can no longer work. When she defies him he angrily retrieves her from the medical clinic. Zinat cannot resist seeing her patients though and pays a visit to a woman named Ashraf who is not home, but her children are. Zinat attempts to give an infant an immunization shot, but Ashraf returns and becomes angry. She tells Zinat to “get a husband” and chases her away.
The pressure to conform to the local mores is immense and comes not just from her and Hamed’s families, but from the village as a whole. When Zinat’s father discovers she has returned to work he becomes irate. He forces her into a room and strikes her. He then locks her in the room, which has bars on the window. She has become a prisoner literally and figuratively. She is locked into a social structure that offers no escape except through conformity.
Zinat returns to her family’s good graces when she dramatically turns her back on her career. After her father sets fire to her uniform, Zinat takes her briefcase and throws it into the flames. This sacrificial imagery shows the choice Zinat must make - a career or a family, but not both.
A turning point occurs when the now married Zinat is approached by Ashraf. Her daughter is gravely ill and is in desperate need of help. Hamed and his mother shoo Ashraf away. She refuses to leave and begs for assistance. Zinat cannot stand by and do nothing. She goes to the girl and Hamed reluctantly follows still resisting the idea of Zinat practicing medicine. However, when Zinat prevents the imminent death of the girl Hamed is transformed. He sees that Zinat has a passion in life and should be allowed to pursue it.
At the end of the film Hamed is shown standing next to a truck into which the sick child is being loaded to be transported to a hospital. Zinat climbs into the truck as well. Hamed turns to see his mother standing nearby. Hamed is forced to choose between his mother, the traditional past, and Zinat, the progressive future. This is reminiscent of the scene where Zinat chooses between a husband and a career. Hamed climbs into the truck and the closing scene shows his mother disappearing into the dust.
This is a good ending that makes an important point. The viewer can choose to stay rooted in the traditional past with all its restrictions on women or embrace a bright future where women are allowed to reach their full potential. However, if I were to rewrite the ending I would not make the choice so stark. Making Hamed choose between his mother and his wife is hard. I would have preferred to see Hamed give his mother the opportunity to join Zinat and himself in the bright future if she was willing to change herself. This would convey the message that social change does not mean that segments of society must be cast aside in the name of progress.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Petition Against "Paradise Now" is Short Sighted
I agree completely with the counter-petition. In my view “Paradise Now” does not in any way “glorify” suicide bombers. In fact it shows the gritty reality of the Palestinians and the desperation that leads to these attacks. Does that justify suicide bombings? As the counter-petition says the final judgment is left to the viewer.
I found the petition to remove the film to be emblematic of the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Nowhere in the petition is it even suggested that Israel’s actions play a role in the violence. The heavy handed treatment of the people in the territory it has occupied for decades is ignored. In the opinion of the author of this petition the bombers are mass murderers and nothing more. Their actions cannot be justified and the mere discussion of that possibility legitimizes murder. In a nutshell his argument is “I’m right, they’re wrong, end of discussion”. Unfortunately that is the same basic argument the hard-line Palestinians make against Israel.
As I am writing this Israel is conducting combat operations in Gaza. According to CNN.com at least 680 Palestinians have been killed and more than 3,000 wounded since December 27. These totals will undoubtedly go higher. The majority of the casualties are civilians, with a third being women and children according to the United Nations. On January 6 Israeli tanks fired on a school where people had taken refuge from the fighting. Forty were killed. If a Palestinian had bombed a school killing dozens the Israelis would claim it was an act of terrorism. Why is Israel not held to the same standard? Why does the author not acknowledge the excesses of the Israeli Defense Forces when he condemns those of Hamas? I realize the events I have cited occurred recently, but one does not have to look hard to find similar actions by the Israelis before the writing of the petition.
The petition against “Paradise Now” is short sighted and misguided. The problem is not a movie that was disliked by the extremists on both sides. The problem for Israel is how to stop suicide bombers and rocket attacks on its cities. Killing Palestinians may disrupt the attacks in the short term, but they sow the seeds of resentment and hate that ensure the attacks will resume in the future. The only way to stop the violence permanently is to remove the motivation for it. That requires the moderates on both sides to demand a political solution that gives the Palestinians a legitimate homeland.
I found the petition to remove the film to be emblematic of the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Nowhere in the petition is it even suggested that Israel’s actions play a role in the violence. The heavy handed treatment of the people in the territory it has occupied for decades is ignored. In the opinion of the author of this petition the bombers are mass murderers and nothing more. Their actions cannot be justified and the mere discussion of that possibility legitimizes murder. In a nutshell his argument is “I’m right, they’re wrong, end of discussion”. Unfortunately that is the same basic argument the hard-line Palestinians make against Israel.
As I am writing this Israel is conducting combat operations in Gaza. According to CNN.com at least 680 Palestinians have been killed and more than 3,000 wounded since December 27. These totals will undoubtedly go higher. The majority of the casualties are civilians, with a third being women and children according to the United Nations. On January 6 Israeli tanks fired on a school where people had taken refuge from the fighting. Forty were killed. If a Palestinian had bombed a school killing dozens the Israelis would claim it was an act of terrorism. Why is Israel not held to the same standard? Why does the author not acknowledge the excesses of the Israeli Defense Forces when he condemns those of Hamas? I realize the events I have cited occurred recently, but one does not have to look hard to find similar actions by the Israelis before the writing of the petition.
The petition against “Paradise Now” is short sighted and misguided. The problem is not a movie that was disliked by the extremists on both sides. The problem for Israel is how to stop suicide bombers and rocket attacks on its cities. Killing Palestinians may disrupt the attacks in the short term, but they sow the seeds of resentment and hate that ensure the attacks will resume in the future. The only way to stop the violence permanently is to remove the motivation for it. That requires the moderates on both sides to demand a political solution that gives the Palestinians a legitimate homeland.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)