More subterfuge in our discourse. The Washington Post published an op-ed piece yesterday on the importance of finding a legal basis for an attack on Iran. Not surprisingly, the op-ed’s authors, Jeffrey H. Smith and John B. Bellinger III, lawyers at Arnold & Porter, supplied such a basis.
Grant Smith sent me this letter that he had sent to the Washington Post:
Would it be too much to ask that WAPO reveal that according to the Justice Department’s Foreign Agent Registration Act section, Arnold and Porter has been serving as Israel’s registered foreign agent since June of 1964? Would it be a lot more to mention that since 2010 the firm has been receiving a $10,000 per month retainer for advisory services and “special projects?” Could WAPO possibly trouble itself to inform readers that according to FARA filings the firm earned $1.2 million in fees in 2010 alone from the Israeli government? Arnold and Porter is now Israel’s largest and longest serving registered foreign agent (not that there aren’t more than a handful of unregistered ones).
More to the point, why should Americans believe such legalistic and non-contextual Iran attack propaganda courtesy of Israeli foreign agents?
Smith wrote about Arnold & Porter in his book Divert. Excerpt:
Arnold & Porter represented several Israeli government officials in US courts by arguing that sovereign immunity mandates provide blanket protection from legal liability for their actions. In 2007 the firm won dismissal of war crimes and crimes against humanity claims brought by Palestinians against former General Security Service head Avraham Dichter. In 2005 the firm won dismissal of similar claims against Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and other senior officials, Israeli military forces and an intelligence agency. In 2006 Arnold & Porter also won dismissal of similar claims focusing on a single Israeli official’s actions that resulted in civilian casualties in 1996. In 2008 Israel’s Treasury paid Arnold & Porter $483,401 to defend such actions. In the year 2010 the firm signed a renewable contract with Israel for a $10,000 per month retainer for legal and advisory services and “special projects” with $8,000 in allowed travel expenses. Arnold & Porter reported $1.2 million in fees from the government of Israel for the year 2010.
The Washington Post, like some other mainstream media outlets, has over the years morphed into a propaganda arm of the Israeli government that has been consistently working against the best interests of the American government and the American people.
Eventually this issue is going to erupt into a scandal in American politics of immense historic proportions. The situation is really crazy. How we got to this point will be occupying the curious and close attention of historians for many decades to come.
Journalism used to mean that this sort of standard fact-checking was done even by a community newspaper … these days the august New York Times can just run stuff like they’re running a blog … good snag – I’m sure there will be an acknowledgement forthcoming after being outed
Can’t imagine this piece appeared as a result of editorial incompetence or ignorance. WaPo is absolutely complicit in not revealing this conflict of interest, which borders on fraud.
Folks here should durn well let the WaPo ombudsman know what they think of this.
202.334.7582 or ombudsman@washpost.com
Having said that, the opinion piece itself didn’t strike me as particularly lop-sided toward Israel. Smith/Bellinger do push the point that ‘Bama would do well to get Congress to sign off on any attack before he pulls the trigger. That may satisfy US law but it would not mean a thing as far as international law.
If you recall Phil’s Sep26 post regarding the Joint Senate Resolution — I believe 41 was the number. While that resolution explicitly states that it is not a declaration of war, and while it does not do much more than “strongly” support US policy toward Iran, it leaves little doubt that if ‘Bama asked Congress to sign off on an attack on Iran, the Senate, at least, would be all too willing to go in with both feet and flags flying — i.e. here we go again. More Americans dying for Israel.
One point S/B fail to address is the goose/gander problem. If, as they argue, it would be legal under international law for Israel or US to throw a preemptive punch at Iran on the grounds of “self-defense,” then a preemptive attack by Iran against Israel/US on the same grounds would be equally legitimate. In fact, it is Israel and the US who have made all the specific threats here, Israel going so far as to “leak” a whole attack scenario. So Iran has an a priori argument of self-defense based on years and years of threats — an argument that is much weaker for Israel/US. This is sort of like the water-boarding issue. Once someone like Bush or ‘Bama determines that water-boarding is legal (in an attempt to protect the US creeps using it), then water-boarding immediately becomes legal when it is used by al-Qaeda against captured US troops.
Another short-coming of this opinion piece is that while S/B discuss international legalities w/ respect to the UN Charter, there is nary a mention of the Geneva Convention. Surely these two well known, well placed experts, one of whom was general counsel for CIA, could not be collectively brain-ded to the point they unintentionally neglected the impact of the Geneva Convention in determining whether a preemptive attack would be “legal.” But hold on . . . could be that they are that brain-ded.
Here’s a quote from their opinion. See if you can believe that an ex-general counsel to the CIA would say this in public:
“A military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities . . .would surely be regarded by Iran as an act of war.”
“[W]ould surely” ??? WTF? Wait until Jon Stewart gets a hold of this!! Who are these guys talking down to, third graders? This sounds to me like something that would be said by either Sarah Palin, George Bush, or Ronald Reagan or by a government hack who is used to having to employ ridiculous understatement to explain simple concepts to brain-ded politicians like Sarah Palin, George Bush, and Ronald Reagan .
The article is of course disingenuous. The authors gracefully note that what would legalize a war in US law would not legalize it in international law. Since international law has the form of treaties that bind USA, we can legalize a war to the extend we make mockery of our legal system. Which is doable but not pretty.
More important is the nature of the enforcement of international law. Which is basically war, starting from declarations that various prior commitments are rendered moot by American violation. The key is delivery of weapon systems to Iran, in particular, anti-aircraft/anti-missile systems like S-300, plus anti-ship missiles for which USA does not have countermeasures. If Iran is cornered AND both Russia and China are very irate, there can be a cascade of very nasty consequences.
For example, Russia (and China) may enter agreement with Iran for temporary military bases with S-300 installations that would defend key areas in Iran, including shores of Strait of Hormuz. Second part would be support (military and diplomatic) of the blockade of the Strait until Iran is guaranteed reparations for the destruction in attacks. American allies (and America) would have a choice of agreeing with the legal case made by such an alliance, with would be expensive and humiliating, but legally reasonable, or to go for prolonged blockade with huge economic losses, and with a dubious legal case to boot. What would happen to American alliances? All would be in question.
This scenario (or similar) entails big risks for all countries involved. This is Great Game, something much, much bigger than Israel. Most probably, the dust would settle without WWIII, but with profound changes in status quo.
piotr says: “…This scenario (or similar) entails big risks for all countries involved. This is Great Game, something much, much bigger than Israel. Most probably, the dust would settle without WWIII, but with profound changes in status quo…”
That’s part of what bugs me about this. There a pretty long list of players here with concerns that are a lot more legitimate than Israel’s — but it all gets decided with reference to Israel.
It’s like buying a new car on the basis of what you think of the salesman’s taste in ties. It’s just not a very rational basis for decision-making, nor it likely to play out well.