Legitimacy of Saudi Regime Challenged, National Press Club Membership Suspended

On [Nov. 15] I went to a news conference at the National Press Club, where I am a member, titled “His Royal Highness Prince Turki al-Faisal al-Sa’ud of Saudi Arabia.” I asked a tough question at the news conference — a question that dealt with the very legitimacy of the Saudi regime. Before the end of the day, I’d received a letter informing me that I was suspended from the National Press Club “due to your conduct at a news conference.” The letter, signed by the executive director of the Club, William McCarren, accused me of violating rules prohibiting “boisterous and unseemly conduct or language.” After several days of efforts, I’ve been able to obtain video of the news conference. The video shows that I did not engage in any “boisterous and unseemly conduct or language.”

Saudi Arabia has basically been a center of counter-revolution in Arabic countries. The Tunisian dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali fled to Saudi Arabia, as did the Yemeni dictator Ali Abdullah Saleh for a time. The Saudi regime reportedly tried to prevent the Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak from stepping down. Saudi Arabia moved into Bahrain to stop a democratic uprising there. And of course it oppresses its own people, maintaining control through a combination of intimidation and in effect buying off much of the population. When major protests were attempted earlier this year, they were quickly put down and garnished little attention from most media. The Saudi regime arguably represents one of the narrowest of elites — it is not the 1%, it is perhaps the global 0.001% — and with hardly a pretense of merit. The Saudi regime continues to get weapons from the U.S. — see: “U.S. announces $60 billion arms sale for Saudi Arabia,” further preventing the possibility of peaceful change.

Prior to the event, I skimmed some material from Human Rights Watch on Saudi Arabia: “Saudi Arabia: Stop Arbitrary Arrests of Shia,” “Saudi Arabia: Free Islamic Scholar Who Criticized Ministry,” “Saudi Arabia: Women to Vote, Join Shura Council — But Reforms Exclude Other Forms of Discrimination.”

Toby Jones (Rutgers University, author of Desert Kingdom: How Oil and Water Forged Modern Saudi Arabia) recently wrote of Saudi Arabia: “the absence of public protest has little to do with the legitimacy of the ruling family, the uncertain popularity of an aged autocrat or the purported conservative nature of Saudi society. Many Saudis, whether pious or not, harbor deep frustrations with the country’s rulers. They share the same grievances about injustice, oppression and stifling corruption that have mobilized protesters elsewhere.” See also Madawi Al Rasheed “Yes, It Could Happen Here: Why Saudi Arabia is Ripe for Revolution” and Christopher M. Davidson “Lords of the Realm: The wealthy, unaccountable monarchs of the Persian Gulf have long thought themselves exempt from Middle East turmoil. No longer.

In the course of his over 30 minutes of remarks, Turki took issue with the term the “Arab Spring” — not because he thought a term like “Arab Uprisings” would be more appropriate, as others I know have argued — rather, he said, he preferred the term “Arab Troubles.” I found it quite distressing that someone would openly say that moves toward democracy were “troubles.”

Peter Hickman, the moderator for the event, called on me for the first question. Here is the exchange:

[Transcript and more after the jump.]

Continue reading

Share on Twitter
Posted in Stakeouts | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 31 Comments

David Albright Questioned on Credentials, Iran Weapons Claims, Record on Israeli Nuclear Weapons — Threatens Stakeout

David Albright, the founder and president of the Institute for Science and International Security appeared on ABC “This Week” on Sunday, “Washington Stakeout” questioned him as he left. Below is a full transcript of our main exchange with references to background material. (I’m not debunking everything here that Albright says that I think is inaccurate, there are several places where he contradicts himself, makes assertions without evidence that seem highly dubious statement.):

Credentials

I hadn’t planned to begin my questioning with credentials, but ABC did identify Albright as a “former U.N. weapons inspector” and Scott Ritter, who was a former chief U.N. weapons inspector, had written a piece that directly questioned that. In “The Nuclear Expert Who Never Was,” Ritter wrote: “David Albright is not a former U.N. weapons inspector, but rather an accidental tourist. To call oneself a weapons inspector suggests that one participated in the totality of the inspection process, and as such can converse readily, based on firsthand experience, about the total spectrum of issues that entails. Albright, based on his flimsy résumé in this regard, is not capable of such, and therefore should stop referring to himself in this manner, and encourage the media to do the same. Likewise, all reference to Albright as ‘Dr. Albright’ should be eliminated. …

“Had Albright in fact been a true nuclear expert, especially one fortified with firsthand experience as a former U.N. weapons inspector, he would not have had any association with Khidir Hamza, the disgraced Iraqi defector who claimed to have firsthand knowledge of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program. A true nuclear expert would have recognized the technical impossibilities and inconsistencies in Hamza’s fabrications. And a genuine former U.N. weapons inspector would have known that Hamza had been fingered as a fraud by the IAEA and UNSCOM. David Albright instead employed Hamza as an analyst with ISIS from 1997 until 1999.”

So I began my questioning:

Continue reading

Share on Twitter
Posted in Stakeouts | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments

There’s a Tax on Band-Aids, Why not on Credit Default Swaps?

“Won’t Tax Rich, Corporations, End Wars — Isn’t Congress Basically Bought and Paid for?”

Two House budget committee members — Rep. Heath Shuler, (D-N.C.), and Rep. Mike Simpson, (R- Idaho) — have been making the media rounds as the new faces of establishment bipartisanship in favor of a letter 100 congress people signed on to stating “all options for mandatory” — presumably including Social Security, which adds nothing to the deficit — “and discretionary spending and revenue must be on the table.”

Sam Husseini questioned them as they left the Fox studios on Sunday morning.

Husseini: Most Americans want to see an increase in taxes on the wealthy and corporations, ending the wars, and Congress doesn’t do that. Is that because Congress is basically bought and paid for?

Shuler: “I think the thing that you look at: here’s an opportunity that we can do so much because once the Supercommittee releases its finding and that becomes a bill, and it’s put on the House floor, there’s no amendments to it, it can’t be altered or changed when it goes from the House to the Senate. So that gives us an opportunity to have a clean slate to be able to put everything on the bill, to increase the revenue. The problem is, you don’t find this very often when you have members of the different political parties working together and acting. It’s much easier to split the screen and let us debate and argue something. But we’re united. We’re together. Now we have 100 members in the House and counting, with the 45 members in the Senate. That is the best, most newsworthy thing we can provide for you under the most difficult situations that we have. And to be able to come up with the cuts that’s necessary and the revenue that’s necessary to put us on a more sustainable path.”

Shuler and Simpson’s handlers begin shouting to try to stop the questioning.

Husseini: “Why aren’t you united to tax the rich and the corporations and end the wars? Why aren’t you united for something that is actually popular rather than pursues monied interests?”

Simpson: “We’ve ought to be looking at everything.”

Husseini [holding up box of Band-Aids just off camera]: “Let me ask you this: yesterday I went to a pharmacy and there’s a tax on Band-Aids. Why isn’t there a tax on financial transactions? I had to pay a 6 percent tax on Band-Aids that people need.”

Simpson: “Probably a state sales tax, right?” [Actually, it's D.C. and D.C. is not a state, with many of its laws set by a Congress that D.C. residents have no real voice in and which Simpson and Shuler are members of.]

Husseini: “What’s your position on financial transaction tax?”

Simpson: “You’d have to look it up.”

Husseini: “Why can’t JP Morgan pay its transaction tax on their dealings [like ordinary people have to pay on necessities like Band-Aids]?”

Shuler and Simpson walk away.

Special thanks to Chris Belcher (video), Sam McCanne (transcription), Jonathan Schwarz, Matthew Bradley, David Swanson, Wendy Mink, Thomas Ferguson and Elisa Salasin for helping.

Share on Twitter
Posted in Stakeouts | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Questioning Ashrawi on Palestinian U.N. Bid: Will You Go to the General Assembly? Is this a PA Ploy?

Big story this week was the Palestinian U.N. bid. Palestinian negotiator Hanan Ashrawi was on ABC’s “This Week” and Christiane Amanpour of questioning revolved around when the Palestinian delegation would resume talks with the Israelis that have gone on for decades.

I asked the opposite question: What are they going to do to make the U.N. state membership bid real instead of relying on more “negotiations”? Are they going to let the bid get bogged down in the Security Council, where the U.S. wields a veto or are they — as noted international lawyers have recommended — move it in short order to the General Assembly, where an overwhelming majority of countries favor Palestinian state membership?

South Sudan recently went from application for U.N. state membership to admission in three days. It has been reported that the Palestinian delegation has given the Security Council two weeks to act. Professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign Francis Boyle has said that U.N. state membership could be obtained within three weeks.

Ashrawi stated they are considering going to the General Assembly, including using the Uniting for Peace resolution that the U.S. backed to get around the Soviet’s veto in the 1950s. She added: “If we see that the Security Council is stalling then certainly we will seek other options, yes.” But she did not specify a timeline.

Boyle stated: “The P.L.O. has given the U.N. Security Council a dead-line of two weeks to act favorably on Palestine’s Application to become a full-fledged Member State in the United Nations Organization. If for any reason the Security Council does not so act favorably by Monday, October 10, then the P.L.O. should invoke the Uniting for Peace Resolution and turn the matter over to the U.N. General Assembly for definitive action.The General Assembly can then admit Palestine as the 194th U.N. Member State no later than Friday, October 14. From the ovations President Abbas received in the U.N. General Assembly, it is obvious that the votes are there for Palestine’s immediate admission to the U.N. as a member state. The Palestinians have waited long enough for U.N. Membership.”

Asharawi said she understood those who thought the effort was a ploy by the Palestinian Authority to maintain its power, but mostly pointed to criticism of Israel, rather than criticism by Palestinians of the PA.

Ashrawi justified the U.N. bid saying that “U.N. is the natural home for the Palestinians” but didn’t seem to offer a compelling reason for why, if that were the case, gaining full U.N. state membership had not been sought before given that the Palestinian state was declared in 1988 and is recognized by over 100 countries. She said: “This is an incremental process.”

Other reasons she gave for the delay: “It’s a question of preventing Israel also from destroying the territorial base of the two-state solution” and that a sense of “hope” was needed. This seemed troubling — are these really the requisites? Preserving the two-state solution, preserving hope? Are not achieving the safety, well being and self determination the supposed goals of the Palestinian leadership? Hope here seems a euphemism for justification for the continuation of the present PA. The lack of a more compelling reason for the timing would seem to bolster the theory that the U.N. bid is largely a ploy to maintain the PA’s position.

Those who have advocated the bid have stated that it could facilitate legal mechanisms, such as the International Criminal Court, which could hinder illegal Israeli attacks and settlements.

Identifying Ashrawi is somewhat problematic. She is a member of the appointed P.L.O Executive Committee. She’s sometimes referred to as a Palestinian legislator, but the Palestinian Legislative Council’s term expired over a year ago and required elections have not been held. Similarly, Mahmoud Abbas’s presidential term expired in 2009 and he had said he would not seek another term. These basic problems are all particularly ironic given that the NGO Asharwi heads, MIFTAH, is supposed to be ensuring “transparency” and “accountability“.

Here’s the transcript of our exchange:

Continue reading

Share on Twitter
Posted in Stakeouts | Tagged , , , , , | 5 Comments

Bachmann, Questioned on Impeachment over Libya War: Titanium Spine or Jellyfish?

Earlier in the morning, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), who is running for the Republican presidential nomination, told Chis Wallace on Fox that she had a “titanium spine.” Here’s the brief exchange I had with her after she left CBS:

Bachmann: Hi, I’m Michele Bachmann and we’re excited about going to Iowa and I hope you all join us.

Sam Husseini: Wonderful. As chair of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus that proclaims a strong fidelity to the United States Constitution, do you believe President Obama should be impeached for going to war against Libya with no authorization from Congress?

Bachmann: I voted against the Libyan action. I’ve been against it from the very beginning. I think this was a foolish decision on the part of the president. I’m sorry he has put us in this situation. I believe he’s taken his eye off the central issue in the Middle East, which is to make sure we do not have a nuclear Iran, and I think this has created instability in the region.

Husseini: But if you really believe in the Constitution –

Bachmann’s handler [pointing to another reporter]: One more question over here —

I sent Bachmann’s comments to two constitutional scholars:
Continue reading

Share on Twitter
Posted in Stakeouts | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments