eddieleaks.org

Kevin Barrett interviews Richard Falk, UN Special Human Rights Rapporteur for the Palestinian Territories

Richard Falk

June 2, 2009

Live interview with Richard Falk, professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University, author or co-author of 20 books, and United Nations Special Human Rights Rapporteur for the Palestinian Territories. In 2004 Richard Falk wrote the rip-roaring introduction to David Ray Griffin’s The New Pearl Harbor, thereby doing almost as much as Griffin himself to drastically raise the 9/11 truth movement’s respectability quotient. His most recent appearance on my radio show triggered a minor scandal when the neocon The New York Sun, which apparently monitors my radio shows, published “U.N. Official Calls for Study Of Neocons’ Role in 9/11.” Dr. Falk is known for his openness to pursuing truth wherever it may lead, not just in the case of 9/11, but also with regard to Israel’s horrific treatment of the Palestinians. He has said that the recent attack on Gaza “seems a war crime of the greatest magnitude” and has recently been devoting himself to human rights issues relating to Palestine.

listen 00:59:02

Direct link to mp3 file:
20090602_kevinbarrett_richardfalk.mp3

NoLiesRadio (source):
http://www.noliesradio.org

Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters

According to this book’s thesis, voters elected Barack Hussein Obama to the presidency for one overriding reason: They were skeptical about the Bush Administration’s War on Terror. After rigorously scrutinizing the so-called War on Terror, Barrett concludes that this concept is an empty propaganda ploy that must be exposed and rejected if Obama voters are to get the change they voted for.

Dr. Kevin Barrett, author of Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters, writes:

“The election of Barack Hussein Obama tacked a giant flashing neon question mark onto the Bush Administration’s much-ballyhooed but never clearly defined ‘War on Terror.’ Surveys showed that McCain voters, like Bush voters before them, were heavily motivated by fear of terrorists. Obama voters, on the other hand, were more worried about the economy.

“By voting for a dark-skinned guy with a Muslim father, a middle name Hussein and a last name that sounds like Osama, Americans were saying they didn’t buy the Fox News propaganda demonizing Arabs, Muslims, and other vaguely dark-skinned people with funny names.

“By voting for the man they perceived as the anti-war candidate, Americans were re-stating the message they had sent in 2006: End the war NOW already! (What is it about the word NOW that the politicians don’t understand?)

“The rejection of the Republicans was also a rejection of torture. Obama campaigned for ending torture and closing Guantanamo, and the voters responded enthusiastically.

“Obama’s election showed the voters sensed a close connection between Bush’s hugely expensive, ruinous War on Terror and the economic difficulties America is facing. By running up a ten trillion dollar deficit and dragging America’s good name through the mud, Bush had wrecked the economy. Perhaps Obama, the peace candidate whose top priority was the economy, would be able to fix it.”

Dr. Barrett uses rigorous analysis and just plain common sense to show that Obama voters were right: the War on Terror is a profoundly dubious enterprise. He begins with the observation that Americans are thirty times more likely to die from lightning strikes, and ten times more likely to drown in their bathtubs, than to be killed by terrorists: “Should we declare war against lightning bolts and bathtubs? Should we install PA systems in our bathrooms reminding us that the threat level of bathtub drowning has been raised to orange? Should we create a new Department of Bathtub Security (DBS) empowered to do sneak-and-peak warrantless searches of our bathrooms to make sure that we’re using no-slip bath-mats? Should we invade and occupy countries that we falsely blame for bathtub deaths? Would this be any crazier than what we’re doing now, allegedly due to the equally insignificant ‘terrorist threat’?”

Using the Socratic method, Questioning the War on Terror asks fifty-four hard questions that, taken together, effectively annihilate the central notion around which our post-9/11 political life has revolved. It concludes with a list of twenty-two concrete actions that readers can take to end the War on Terror and achieve the change they voted for.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 54 other followers

%d bloggers like this: