Israel teamed up with terrorists

[hater]

not only terrorists but killers of american citizens

- israel poses as CIA
- teams up with terrorists

where is the outrage?

Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC News
http://rockcenter.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/08/10354553-israel-teams-with-terror-group-to-kill-irans-nuclear-scientists-us-officials-tell-nbc-news

Deadly attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists are being carried out by an Iranian dissident group that is financed, trained and armed by Israel’s secret service, U.S. officials tell NBC News, confirming charges leveled by Iran’s leaders.

The group, the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, has long been designated as a terrorist group by the United States, accused of killing American servicemen and contractors in the 1970s and supporting the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran before breaking with the Iranian mullahs in 1980.

The attacks, which have killed five Iranian nuclear scientists since 2007 and may have destroyed a missile research and development site, have been carried out in dramatic fashion, with motorcycle-borne assailants often attaching small magnetic bombs to the exterior of the victims’ cars.

U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Obama administration is aware of the assassination campaign but has no direct involvement.

The Iranians have no doubt who is responsible – Israel and the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, known by various acronyms, including MEK, MKO and PMI.

[cheguevara]

Unfortunately this means the US is funding terrorism.

:pctoss

[cheguevara]

:lol this is nowhere to be seen on CNN.com

not even after search :lol

[cheguevara]

to be fair this is also nowhere to be seen in foxnews.

NBC, Time. Props for your unbiased journalism.

[mercos]

You report this as if it is surprising. We have always teamed up with bad apples to advance our agenda in a given region. Hell, we funded and trained Osama Bin Laden. Iran funds two terrorist organizations (Hamas and Hezbollah) that are constantly lobbing missiles at Israeli citizens. It is downright silly to believe that if Iran develops nuclear weapons it will not hand them to its terrorist proxies in and around Israel to use against their greatest enemy. The only thing I object to is the Israelis posing as CIA agents.

[cheguevara]

We have always teamed up with bad apples to advance our agenda in a given region. Hell, we funded and trained Osama Bin Laden. Iran funds two terrorist organizations (Hamas and Hezbollah) that are constantly lobbing missiles at Israeli citizens.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Not especially if you call yourself the Allies(good guys who fight terrorism around the world)


It is downright silly to believe that if Iran develops nuclear weapons it will not hand them to its terrorist proxies in and around Israel to use against their greatest enemy.

Really? what is your basis for that? Did this happen in Pakistan? Pakistan also funds terrorist organizations and has nuclear weapons, as well as an archenemy(India). Why has this not happened?

[Wild Cobra]

Is MSNBC plagiarizing the Onion again?

[Winehole23]

It is downright silly to believe that if Iran develops nuclear weapons it will not hand them to its terrorist proxies in and around Israel to use against their greatest enemy. this is downright silly, IMHO.

lol greatest enemy

[ChumpDumper]

Modern Israel was in no small part founded by terrorists.

Terrorism worked for them.

[hater]

Really? what is your basis for that? Did this happen in Pakistan? Pakistan also funds terrorist organizations and has nuclear weapons, as well as an archenemy(India). Why has this not happened?

Because this is the real world. Not neoconland.

:lol It's not even physically possible to hand someone a nuclear weapon so they can go and use it as a terrorist weapon without massive repercussions. :lol this aint 24

[mercos]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Not especially if you call yourself the Allies(good guys who fight terrorism around the world)



Really? what is your basis for that? Did this happen in Pakistan? Pakistan also funds terrorist organizations and has nuclear weapons, as well as an archenemy(India). Why has this not happened?


Pakistan is not Iran. It is run by elected leaders (and occasionally the military). Iran is run by its religious leaders. Iran has publicly called for Israel to be wiped off the map. The fact that Iran has publicly called for Israel's destruction, and is developing weapons capable of pulling it off lead me to believe they would use them. Whether or not they will is something no one can say with certainty. I know that if I was living in Israel I would certainly not want to sit around and find out.

[cheguevara]

Pakistan is not Iran. It is run by elected leaders (and occasionally the military). Iran is run by its religious leaders.

So is Israel. So?


Iran has publicly called for Israel to be wiped off the map. The fact that Iran has publicly called for Israel's destruction, and is developing weapons capable of pulling it off lead me to believe they would use them. Whether or not they will is something no one can say with certainty. I know that if I was living in Israel I would certainly not want to sit around and find out.

It's sad that you are still using that one sentence by one guy in one speech as your only evidence. Not to mention it was a mistranslation and it has already been debunked. The actual translation is Israel regime will be removed from pages of time.

Do your research and you will see your evidence is flawed to the bone.

[mercos]

Israel is run by a democratically elected government. As for your other points, perhaps you are right. I am not a language expert, so all I can go by is what is reported. When I look at the body of evidence that is Iran's behavior I am extremely skeptical of their intentions. I know that if a similar situation was occurring with a country near the US we would already be rebuilding it by now.

[NewcastleKEG]

Let me speak for all Non Jews when I say, Fuck You Israel

[mercos]

It is not the Jewish Americans who are behind the United States support of Israel. It is the Christians who believe Jews must be in charge of the land of Israel before Jesus can come back. There is FAR more non Jewish support for Israel than there is Jewish support.

[NewcastleKEG]

It is not the Jewish Americans who are behind the United States support of Israel. It is the Christians who believe Jews must be in charge of the land of Israel before Jesus can come back. There is FAR more non Jewish support for Israel than there is Jewish support.
Most Americans are also not aware that we hand Israel money each year, to the tune of billions.

Americans as a whole are un-educated & ignorant. Which makes the American deaths in the Middle East that much more pathetic. Atleast Israel is forced to live & die there

[mavs>spurs]

You report this as if it is surprising. We have always teamed up with bad apples to advance our agenda in a given region. Hell, we funded and trained Osama Bin Laden. Iran funds two terrorist organizations (Hamas and Hezbollah) that are constantly lobbing missiles at Israeli citizens. It is downright silly to believe that if Iran develops nuclear weapons it will not hand them to its terrorist proxies in and around Israel to use against their greatest enemy. The only thing I object to is the Israelis posing as CIA agents.

Iran wouldn't want nuclear fallout all over their country. Nuking their closest neighbor would be suicide.

[Nbadan]

,,,not to mention our own state department has stated that Iran is not currently, actively developing a nuclear weapon...it would be silly to risk biological weapons attacks, which hezbollah and hamas have in stock now, over a non-existent nuclear threat..

[cheguevara]

Israel is run by a democratically elected government.

Israel is controlled by the radical religious right. And guess what, the american Jew lobby is 10x more radical


As for your other points, perhaps you are right. I am not a language expert, so all I can go by is what is reported. When I look at the body of evidence that is Iran's behavior I am extremely skeptical of their intentions. I know that if a similar situation was occurring with a country near the US we would already be rebuilding it by now.

I understand. The media will do that to you.

[cheguevara]

It is not the Jewish Americans who are behind the United States support of Israel. It is the Christians who believe Jews must be in charge of the land of Israel before Jesus can come back. There is FAR more non Jewish support for Israel than there is Jewish support.

I partly agree. But the real lobbyists are the radical Jew lobbies in the US. I understand the christians here support them and all, but I am not sure they are pushing to send their children to fight for the holy land. At least not anymore.

As someone else said. Christians are willing to send their billions there for support, but I doubt they are willing to send their children to die for Israel.

[Wild Cobra]

Let me speak for all Non Jews when I say, Fuck You Israel
You don't speak for me you sorry bigot.

[Jacob1983]

Israel is just as corrupt and violent as Iran and the rest of the Muslim countries in the Middle East. Why is a person a racist or bigot when they say stuff like that? If you say anything negative or critical of Israel, you're a racist. It's like Israel is perfect or something.

[Wild Cobra]

Israel is just as corrupt and violent as Iran and the rest of the Muslim countries in the Middle East. Why is a person a racist or bigot when they say stuff like that? If you say anything negative or critical of Israel, you're a racist. It's like Israel is perfect or something.
If that's what I think, then you are being prejudiced.

I have worked with Israeli professionals. I completely disagree with your assessment. I think you're listening to too much Nazi or Islamic propaganda.

have you ever actually known or worked with Israeli citizens?

[cheguevara]

If that's what I think, then you are being prejudiced.

I have worked with Israeli professionals. I completely disagree with your assessment. I think you're listening to too much Nazi or Islamic propaganda.

have you ever actually known or worked with Israeli citizens?

Average Israeli citizens are gentle folk. So are Iranians.

I think we're all talking about the ruling regimes and the radical groups that control it.

[Winehole23]

One of the most under-reported political stories of the last year is the devoted advocacy of numerous prominent American political figures on behalf of an Iranian group long formally designated as a Terrorist organization (http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm) under U.S. law. A large bipartisan cast has received substantial fees from that group, the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), and has then become their passionate defenders. The group of MEK shills includes former top Bush officials and other Republicans (Michael Mukasey, Fran Townsend, Andy Card, Tom Ridge, Rudy Giuliani) as well as prominent Democrats (Howard Dean, Ed Rendell, Bill Richardson, Wesley Clark). As The Christian Science Monitor reported last August (http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/print/content/view/print/401543), those individuals “have been paid tens of thousands of dollars to speak in support of the MEK.” No matter what one thinks of this group – here is a summary of its activities (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/opinion/sunday/an-iranian-cult-and-its-american-friends.html?pagewanted=all) – it is formally designated as a Terrorist group and it is thus a felony under U.S. law to provide it with any “material support.”


There are several remarkable aspects to this story. The first is that there are numerous Muslims inside the U.S. who have been prosecuted for providing “material support for Terrorism” for doing far less than these American politicians are publicly doing on behalf of a designated Terrorist group. A Staten Island satellite TV salesman in 2009 was sentenced to five years (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/nyregion/24cable.html) in federal prison merely for including a Hezbollah TV channel as part of the satellite package he sold to customers; a Massachusetts resident, Tarek Mehanna, is being prosecuted now (http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/tarek-mehanna-terrorist) ”for posting pro-jihadist material on the internet”; a 24-year-old Pakistani legal resident living in Virginia, Jubair Ahmad, was indicted last September (http://www.salon.com/2011/09/04/speech_23/singleton/) for uploading a 5-minute video to YouTube that was highly critical of U.S. actions in the Muslim world, an allegedly criminal act simply because prosecutors claim he discussed the video in advance with the son of a leader of a designated Terrorist organization (Lashkar-e-Tayyiba); a Saudi Arabian graduate student, Sami Omar al-Hussayen, was prosecuted (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/27/us/computer-student-on-trial-over-muslim-web-site-work.html) simply for maintaining a website with links “to groups that praised suicide bombings in Chechnya and in Israel” and “jihadist” sites that solicited donations for extremist groups (he was ultimately acquitted); and last July, a 22-year-old former Penn State student and son of an instructor at the school, Emerson Winfield Begolly, was indicted for — in the FBI’s words (http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/July/11-nsd-919.html) — “repeatedly using the Internet to promote violent jihad against Americans” by posting comments on a “jihadist” Internet forum including “a comment online that praised the shootings” at a Marine Corps base, action which former Obama lawyer Marty Lederman said (http://balkin.blogspot.com/2011/07/begolly-indictment-and-first-amendment.html) “does not at first glance appear to be different from the sort of advocacy of unlawful conduct that is entitled to substantial First Amendment protection.”


Yet here we have numerous American political figures receiving substantial fees from a group which is legally designated under American law as a Terrorist organization. Beyond that, they are meeting with the Terrorist leaders of that group repeatedly (Howard Dean told NPR (http://www.npr.org/2011/08/15/139648748/op-ed-iranian-group-must-stay-on-terror-list?ft=1&f=) last year about the group’s leader, Maryam Rajavi: “I have actually had dinner with Mrs. Rajavi on numerous occasions. I do not find her very terrorist-like” and has even insisted (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/opinion/sunday/an-iranian-cult-and-its-american-friends.html?pagewanted=all) that she should be recognized as Iran’s President, while Rudy Giuliani publicly told her at a Paris conference in December: “These are the most important yearnings of the human soul that you support, and for your organization to be described as a terrorist organization is just simply a disgrace”). And, after receiving fees from the Terrorist group and meeting with its Terror leaders, these American political figures are going forth and disseminating pro-MEK messages on its behalf and working to have it removed from the Terrorist list.


Given all the prosecutions of politically powerless Muslims for far fewer connections to Terrorist groups than the actions of these powerful (paid) political figures, what conceivable argument is there for not prosecuting Dean, Giuliani, and the rest of them for providing “material support for Terrorism”? What they are providing to MEK is the definitive “material support.” Although these activities (along with those of the above-listed prosecuted Muslims) should be protected free speech, the U.S. Government has repeatedly imprisoned people for it. Indeed, as Georgetown Law Professor David Cole noted (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/opinion/03cole.html?_r=1), these activities on behalf of MEK are clearly prosecutable as “material support for Terrorism” under the standard advocated by the Bush and Obama DOJs and accepted by (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1498.pdf) the Supreme Court in the Holder v. Humanitarian Law case of 2009, which held that even peaceful advocacy on behalf of a Terrorist group can be prosecuted if done in coordination with the group (ironically, many of these paid MEK supporters have long been advocates (http://www.salon.com/2011/01/03/fran_townsend_terrorism/) of broad application of “material support” statutes (when applied to Muslims, that is) and have even praised the Humanitarian Law case). If we had anything even remotely approaching equal application of the law, Dean, Giuliani, Townsend and the others would be facing prosecution as Terrorist-helpers.
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/10/israel_mek_and_state_sponsor_of_terror_groups/singleton/

[Winehole23]

If these senior U.S. officials are telling the truth, there are a number of vital questions and conclusions raised by this. First, it would mean that the assurances by MEK’s paid American shills such as Howard Dean that “they are unarmed” are totally false: whoever murdered these scientists is obviously well-armed. Second, this should completely gut the effort to remove MEK from the list of designated Terrorist groups; after all, murdering Iran’s scientists through the use of bombs and guns is a defining act of a Terror group, at least as U.S. law attempts to define the term. Third, this should forever resolve the debate in which I was involved last month about whether the attack on these Iranian scientists constitutes Terrorism; as Daniel Larison put it yesterday (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2012/02/09/nbc-report-israel-and-the-mek-responsible-for-deaths-of-iranian-nuclear-scientists/): “If true, the murders of Iranian nuclear scientists with bombs have been committed by a recognized terrorist group. Can everyone acknowledge at this point that these attacks were acts of terrorism?”same

[Agloco]

this is downright silly, IMHO.

lol greatest enemy

I understand that the largest threat is regional proliferation, regardless of what Iran may or may not opt to do with their new toys. Error margins shrink quite a bit with more players at the table. While I am obviously against the killing of scientists (imagine that) or anyone for that matter, I do tend to take quite a conservative view on Iran and how to handle the situation.



Really? what is your basis for that? Did this happen in Pakistan? Pakistan also funds terrorist organizations and has nuclear weapons, as well as an archenemy(India). Why has this not happened?

Why are you invoking Pakistan? Similar political/social forces at work?


Because this is the real world. Not neoconland.

:lol It's not even physically possible to hand someone a nuclear weapon so they can go and use it as a terrorist weapon without massive repercussions. :lol this aint 24

The Bauer, McCoy, Bourne, Rambo, and Dutch dream team. We could get some things done...... :lol

[Winehole23]

btw, what is the "conservative" approach to Iran?

[Wild Cobra]

btw, what is the "conservative" approach to Iran?
I got a chuckle out of McCain's response:


o-zoPgv_nYg



r2v8cuQTVO8



xu29F8NfRvI

[Winehole23]

Preemptive war against a country that has not attacked us, poses no military threat to the US mainland and would only delay Iran's nuke program for a few years -- and could tip the whole world back into recession by causing energy prices to spike -- is conservative how?

[Agloco]

btw, what is the "conservative" approach to Iran?

For my part, it's erring on the side of caution as it pertains to its nuclear programme (ie finding a way to halt it). Engaging Iran directly in dialogue would be my preferred method of dealing with them. It's quite difficult to gauge intent in these matters, especially running through a middle man. As such, context tends to guide us to our conclusions however right or wrong they may be. Currently, the context is one of clandestine high-uranium enrichment on the part of the Iranians. I know of only one purpose for that.

True board "conservatives" may tend to advocate stronger measures: airstrikes, or possibly even tacit approval of these killings.

Either way, I do think that turning a blind eye to the matter today invites greater troubles down the road.

[Winehole23]

Has someone suggested turning a blind eye toward Iran?

[Agloco]

Has someone suggested turning a blind eye toward Iran?


Ron Paul?

His views have a few supporters on this board as well. There appears to be a schizophrenic component to "conservative" foreign policy.

One would think that negotiation should play a key part regardless of which lens we view this through.

[Winehole23]

Too bad the USA refused the overtures of Brazil and Turkey earlier, just as it now dismisses the possibility of further negotiations in the 5+1 framework.

[Winehole23]

And the NATO action in Libya showed the world the just desserts for compliance, normalization and forswearing nuclear weapons. We didn't think that one all the way through, tbh.

[Winehole23]

Jonathan Tobin answers (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/13/israel-iran-moral-equivalence/) the (http://www.salon.com/2012/02/10/israel_mek_and_state_sponsor_of_terror_groups/singleton/) criticisms (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2012/02/09/how-terrorism-becomes-entirely-defensible/) of (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/02/israel-and-proxy-terrorism/252971/) his defense of alleged Israel-MEK cooperation (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2012/02/09/nbc-report-israel-and-the-mek-responsible-for-deaths-of-iranian-nuclear-scientists/):
All seem to agree Israel’s alleged use of the MEK to kill Iranian scientists is an act of terrorism, and this makes Israel a state sponsor of terrorism. They also believe it is terribly hypocritical of those of us who denounce terrorist attacks on Jews and Israelis to think it is okay to knock off those working on Iran’s nuclear program.
As Paul Pillar wrote (http://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/deeper-terrorism-6491) the other day, assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists are acts of terrorism whether the MEK is involved or not:

With or without confirmation of details of this story, the assassinations are terrorism. (The official U.S. government definition of terrorism for reporting and statistic-keeping purposes is “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.”)
The attacks also fit the legal definition of international terrorism (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331) according to U.S. law. If true, the alleged use of the MEK for these attacks removes all doubt that these are acts of terrorism. If Israel has sponsored these attacks, it has sponsored acts of terrorism. The question is whether it is acceptable to employ terrorist tactics and terrorist groups against certain states. Should we apply one moral standard that condemns terrorism in all its forms without exception, or do we say that there is one standard for our government, allies and clients, and another for other states? Tobin comes down clearly in favor of a double standard. That was (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2012/01/12/terrorism-and-double-standards/) Greenwald’s point from the beginning (http://www.salon.com/2012/01/12/iran_and_the_terrorism_game/singleton).


It isn’t true that Tobin’s critics are setting up a moral equivalence between the governments of Israel and Iran. Tobin makes the charge that the other critics and I are indulging in such moral relativism for the purpose of “delegitimizing” Israel, but it is Tobin who wants one standard for judging Israeli behavior and a very different one for judging Iranian behavior. What all of us are saying is that there is a moral and legal equivalence between different acts of terrorism, and that the victims of terrorist attacks are equally human. The lives of Iranian civilians have just as much value as the lives of Israeli civilians. The former don’t become more expendable because their government is authoritarian, abusive, and supports Hamas. If it is wrong and illegal for one group or state to commit acts of terrorism, it must be wrong and illegal in all cases. The reasons for the acts shouldn’t matter, and neither should the justifications. Either we reject the amoral logic that the ends justify the means, or we endorse it.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2012/02/13/how-terrorism-becomes-entirely-defensible-iii/

[Spurs da champs]

As far as I see it Iran has never attacked anyone & who honestly are we to tell them if they can have a nuke or not? And I love how Israel has over 300 nukes but yet no one gets on them talk about double standard.:rolleyes

Also they've started many wars, if they strike Iran let them suffer the consequences not our troops.

Another funny thing about Israel is the fact that they started these little 'terrorist' attacks but when Iran retaliates they get all pissed off.

[NewcastleKEG]

As far as I see it Iran has never attacked anyone & who honestly are we to tell them if they can have a nuke or not? And I love how Israel has over 300 nukes but yet no one gets on them talk about double standard.:rolleyes

Also they've started many wars, if they strike Iran let them suffer the consequences not our troops.

Another funny thing about Israel is the fact that they started these little 'terrorist' attacks but when Iran retaliates they get all pissed off.
I wouldn't blame extremist from striking in America

[mercos]

As far as I see it Iran has never attacked anyone & who honestly are we to tell them if they can have a nuke or not? And I love how Israel has over 300 nukes but yet no one gets on them talk about double standard.:rolleyes

Also they've started many wars, if they strike Iran let them suffer the consequences not our troops.

Another funny thing about Israel is the fact that they started these little 'terrorist' attacks but when Iran retaliates they get all pissed off.

Iran has attacked Israel by funneling money and weapons to Hamas and Hezbollah who have in turn launched repeated attacks against Israeli citizens. It is fine if you are against the use of force to handle the nuclear problem, but let's not pretend Iran is some innocent country that is getting picked on.

[Spurs da champs]

Iran has attacked Israel by funneling money and weapons to Hamas and Hezbollah who have in turn launched repeated attacks against Israeli citizens. It is fine if you are against the use of force to handle the nuclear problem, but let's not pretend Iran is some innocent country that is getting picked on.

Zionist Israel kicked Palestinians out of their state & is a racist state with apartheid. Please dont act like Israel is some innocent country that is getting picked on.

[Nbadan]

Israel has a Neocon problem that would give Dick Cheney a woody....

[Winehole23]

a Massachusetts resident, Tarek Mehanna, is being prosecuted now (http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/tarek-mehanna-terrorist) ”for posting pro-jihadist material on the internet”

On April 12, Mr. Mehanna was sentenced to 17 and a half years in prison. Hearing this, most Americans would probably assume that the F.B.I. caught a major homegrown terrorist and that 17 and a half years is reasonable punishment for someone plotting to engage in terrorism. The details, however, reveal this to be one of the most important free speech cases we have seen since Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969..

...Because Mr. Mehanna’s conviction was based largely on things he said, wrote and translated. Yet that speech was not prosecuted according to the Brandenburg standard of incitement to “imminent lawless action” but according to the much more troubling standard of having the intent to support a foreign terrorist organization.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/opinion/sunday/a-dangerous-mind.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3

[Winehole23]

There is no real doubt that Mehanna is an al Qaeda supporter, traveled to Yemen to try to get some Jihad on (failed), translated al Qaeda documents to spread propaganda and clearly hates his own country's foreign policy to a degree that allowed him to want to see hi fellow citizens incinerated, like "BBQ," in his analogy. But I see no tangible, direct, organizational links with al Qaeda as in the Awlaki case; and mere translation and abhorrent, treasonous views. I can see why some conspiracy charges might have been salient, but a 17 year sentence? That seems unduly punitive to me.

Part of the problem is that Mehanna's backers really don't believe we are at war (hence the fact that both sides can talk past each other). But if we are at war, enemy propagandists have not historically been treated as untouchable. A reader writes:

I have no idea why anyone thinks that the propagandists for our military enemies should be afforded freedom of speech. Here’s a quick list of Axis propagandists tried, imprisoned, and in some cases executed after World War II:
* William Joyce – Lord Haw-Haw, British propagandist for the Germans
* Fred W. Kaltenbach – Lord Hee-Haw, American propagandist for the Germans
* Iva Toguri D’Aquino – Tokyo Rose, American propagandist for the Japanese
* Mildred Gillars – Axis Sally, American propagandist for the Germans
* Rita Zucca – Axis Sally, American propagandist for the Italians
These individual did not take up arms in the field of battle, but they all betrayed their native lands in their attempts to destroy Allied morale and extol the virtues of fascism during wartime. It is uncontroversial that they were guilty of treason. How is it controversial when the enemy is Al-Qaeda?
We have aired both sides (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/04/what-threatens-speech.html) of the argument and after reading more, I feel less confident in my previous position. (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/04/stretching-the-limits-of-free-speech-ctd.html) But I wonder if, say, Glenn Greenwald, believes that treason itself is a crime. Or should be. And if Mehanna is not a traitor, who would be?
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/04/stretching-the-limits-of-free-speech-ctd-1.html