Sunday, June 24, 2018

LET’S TALK ABOUT MELANIA’S JACKET



By now, it has become famous—or infamous, depending on your viewpoint. Whatever your point of view might be, it wasn’t “just a jacket” as her spokespeople tried to convince us when they sought to backpedal, but a “fashion statement” that painted the Trump Regime from head to toe (almost).

I’m talking, of course, about Melania Trump’s field jacket, the one she wore to the US-Mexico border in what can only be seen as a failed attempt at a forced damage control mission after her husband enacted a nefarious policy that ended up with government-caged child hostages and migrant families separated with no real assurance of being reunited. The jacket was a common enough army green field jacket (marketed by Zara at about US$40), but on the back was emblazoned a strange message considering that she was heading to a place where there was real suffering going on—suffering for which her husband was entirely to blame: “I DON’T REALLY CARE, DO U?
There were numerous theories as to why Melania had worn the jacket. Few of them were naïve enough to express a belief that she wasn’t sending a message, or that she just grabbed the first thing off the coat rack by the kitchen door.
A London tabloid thought that “it must, MUST, be a hoax.” But no, her staff immediately jumped to the defense of her “fashion” choice. Melania’s spokesperson, Stephanie Grisham offered a “no theory theory.” It was just a jacket. There was no hidden massage. The president tweeted a (fake) theory of his own. It was, he said, a message “to the Fake News Media. Melania has learned how dishonest they are, and she truly no longer cares!” Perhaps the kindest theory of all was the one who had poor little rich girl Melania sending a private message to her mean old husband: It was a way of telling her husband: “I really don’t care” about how much you want to crack down on the borders; this isn’t fair to children. Another theory was that it was a message to The Don about their own personal relationship. Since the stories about porn star Stormy Daniels having gone to bed with Trump, Melania has been conspicuous by her absence from many events where she might be expected to accompany her husband. But then again, she’s been capricious about accompanying him ever since his presidency began. Still others thought the message was precisely about that, her absence from the scene and media speculation about where she was. This one seemed to me particularly far-fetched. The harshest theory was that it was a message to the migrants themselves, telling them, in short, that if they came into the country illegally and had their kids taken from them, then they deserved it and she didn’t care about their plight.
I have a theory of my own—which is no better or worse than anybody else’s—and since we may never know whether Melania was really trying to tell somebody something or she's just such an air-head that she put on a stupid, trendy jacket without even stopping to think what it said on the back, here goes: I think that Trump, in his usual contradictory way, put a policy in place without weighing the consequences. Typical executive that he is, he wanted to blame someone else for the immediate fallout. So when he decided to backtrack and try to fob the blame off on Democrats, he wanted to underscore the move by having his wife show the same kind of dismay and empathy displayed by Republican former First Lady Laura Bush. I submit that he very likely ordered Melania to go to the region where migrants and their children were being detained and she balked. Eventually, he or his staff talked her into it, but she wasn’t happy about going, so she decided to send her husband a message through the TV screen, which is where most of his focus is most of the day. The message: I’m going but only because you’re making me, And frankly, Donald, I don’t give a damn.  
Certain people on both sides of the running political war in the US seek consistently to justify Melania and to give her a break. The left, because she has several times shown contempt for and disagreement with her husband, more through body language than anything else, and without translating her rebellion into public statements. And the right because, in their eyes, Melania is an extension of Trump, and for them, Trump can do no wrong. But the only way not to be complicit with someone as monstrously insensitive, authoritarian, racist, isolationist, misogynistic and hateful as the current US president is by taking clear distance from him, and the First Lady (in point of fact The Third Lady, if you don’t count Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, who clearly takes priority over his latest wife) continues to serve his purposes, no matter what might happen between them in private or what pranks she plays on him in public.
Whatever the case may be, the message on Melania’s jacket can’t be explained away. It was, at best, a childish, vulgar display of defiance toward the mission she was being sent on by her husband. At worst, it was a symptom of the contempt in which the Trumps and their regime hold human rights and the suffering of others.
In short, the American public and the world have no reason to have to interpret the allegedly minute nuances of an overtly crass and callous message displayed as if on a billboard across the US First Lady’s back. People take it at face value and at face value, it is a slap in the face to all of those who are suffering injustice at the hands of the current administration and to any decent person who believes in the feelings of others and in the sanctity and legitimacy of human rights.    


Saturday, June 23, 2018

THE FAMILY SEPARATION INCIDENT AND WHAT IT SAYS ABOUT TRUMP



What US Attorney General Jeff Sessions has called a “zero tolerance policy” is, in fact, an unnecessary and cruel injustice imposed as an inhuman deterrent to Hispanic migrants and as a blackmail ploy to try and ram the administration’s nefarious and racist immigration policy down the throats of the opposition.

As I’m writing this, hundreds of children have been taken from their parents and dispersed to holding facilities all over the US, with no plan for how to eventually reunite them with their families, no proper installations in which to take care of them, and not even an appropriate system for identifying them and matching them with their parents. It’s important to reflect on the fact that, while this “policy” has taken sufficient flak to force the US president to reluctantly—and only partially—renege of the “jail everybody” order from the Department of Justice (DOJ), had such a procedure been implemented by some non-First World nation, it would have been decried throughout the West as tantamount to abduction and in violation of global human rights standards.
The process is authoritarian and immoral. It is traumatic and permanently damaging to many of the children who have suffered it, and the nightmare isn’t over yet.
From the outset, the procedure—if indeed such a horrendous procedure were to be implemented—should have been to have the data of parents and the children straight and cross-indexed instead of treating them all like criminals dragged in from the street and thrown nameless into holding tanks, for a “crime” that, until very recently, has been treated as a misdemeanor. As implemented by the Trump regime (if the administration insists on acting like a regime, then let’s call a spade a spade) the procedure employed is the same as under a number of dictatorships that I’ve reported on during my career in journalism. In those, children were often lost forever, or ended up not finding their long-lost relatives until 20 years or more later. From the reports of utter chaos and confusion emerging from the zero-tolerance policy implemented by Trump (with the collusion of his own evil advisory junta, Attorney General Sessions and White House advisors Stephan Miller and General John Kelly) this could happen as well to some of these kids who have been separated from their parents, caged, and then scattered like chaff in the wind.
Trump’s followers whom I interact with daily on the social media keep being offended by my references to Nazi Germany—mine and those of people like former National Security and CIA director, General Michael Hayden—but they’d better get used to it. Because that's how it's looking.

Gen Michael Hayden

Verified account


@GenMhayden
Jun 16
More
Other governments have separated mothers and children

Gen Michael Hayden

Verified account

@GenMhayden
Jun 16
More
This is Birkenau. Then Germany. Now Poland. NO ONE who now walks through that portal on that siding can casually believe that civilized behavior is guaranteed.
Manage

Reply5dEdited

Dan Newland Retired Air Force General and former head of the CIA. He chose this particular photo because these tracks were where children were separated from their parents. Also, it's chilling that there are reports of children being removed from their parents at the Mexican border with the excuse that they are being taken to be bathed, after which they never return, since they are actually being taken to internment camps or "foster care". People in concentration camps in Europe in the Nazi era were also "taken to baths" from which they never returned. And it all happens gradually.

The other day two of my Facebook friends and former schoolmates said it was a “bad comparison” to liken the separation of Jewish families under Hitler to what's been happening on the US-Mexico border, because the US “wasn't exterminating anyone.” All I can say is, “Holy Crap!” Has it come down to that? That the “moral high ground” is defined by whether you exterminate or not? Is anything short of extermination okay and not comparable to the horrors of other wicked regimes, simply because the US doesn’t physically eliminate its victims?
And, anyway, as I responded to them, the answer to “We don’t exterminate,” should be, “No, not yet!”
No one seems to want to face the fact that democracy, as The Washington Post tagline goes, “dies in darkness.” People conveniently ignore the fact that fascism, autocracy, totalitarianism, or any other name you want to give to autocratic regimes and personality cult dictatorships don't happen overnight. I know. I've lived under both for a decade of my life. And you could see it coming. From the deterioration of democracy, to a personality cult popular dictatorship, to a declared state of siege and the suspension of basic rights, and finally, to tanks in the street and an elitist military dictatorship in government. And not only have I lived (miraculously, since I refused to keep my mouth shut) through those, but I've also covered several others, and the signs are always the same. 
Nazi Germany didn't see fascism coming either. They just saw a firebrand leader (also with a bad haircut) who attacked the status quo and talked down to traditional politicians whom he eventually banned, to cheers and raised fists of his racist, nativist base. And before they knew it, decent Germans who were tacitly against persecution of non-Aryans ended up no longer having a voice, because it became okay to jail or eliminate them if they spoke out. Eventually, it even became legal to jail or eliminate them. So when you hear those who, like Attorney General Sessions, quote “the law” in carrying out heinous, inhuman acts, warning, they are the voice of the “legal but illegitimate” and the harbingers of de facto rule. 
I feel sorry for Americans who laugh off these warnings and say “It could never happen in America.” Democracy only survives if it is defended, if people stand up and demand it, if, like the teen survivors of the Parkland mass shooting, they “call bullshit” when they see it. The truth is, that it is happening, right under our noses. The United States is courting the policies of authoritarianism and the personality cults of fascist designs.  
The burning question is this: When you start having policies to cage children and to criminalize people because of race, language and origin, can ghettos and concentration camps be far behind?

Friday, June 22, 2018

THE NEW YANKEE AT LARGE


Today begins a new era for this blog. After remaining silent for nearly half a decade, I’ve once again decided to return to writing a political and social blog.
I wish I could say I was refloating this blog because I simply have more time and want to return to journalism as “a hobby” after long years in the profession previously. But nothing could be further from the truth.
A Yankee At Large is being refloated out of my grave concern for what is currently happening in the world—the deterioration of democracy, the rise of authoritarian designs, and the parallel erosion of human and civil rights, in pace with the equally grave destruction of the environment.
In Spanish, there is a great expression: El que se calla, ortorga. It means, roughly, He who keeps silent, gives permission. (And by the way, in its new genesis, this blog will be published in both English and Spanish). I refuse to give my permission for any of these nefarious trends. For what it’s worth, I want to take a public stand, to make my voice heard, even if it’s only to a handful of readers. I want to be on the right side of history, and make it clear which side I consider that to be.
So I’ll be writing short editorials and longer research articles here, on a more or less regular basis, as well as sharing links to other articles, interviews, etc. that I feel are important for people to read in order to have a clearer view of the present, the past, and the possible future.
I just want to thank those of you who have continued to read my past essays and articles posted here. It is moving to me to read my traffic statistics and realize that even after such a long hiatus, I still have a loyal reader base.
You rock!

Thursday, August 24, 2017

FEARLESS LEADER!


Fox News's Prevaricator-in-Chief Tucker Carlson on eclipse mania: 

"Even the President saw it, but in a move that is not a complete surprise, he looked directly at the sun without any glasses. Perhaps the most impressive thing any president has ever done!"
Hey Tucker, if you ever get canned at Fox (even Bill O'Reilly turned out to be expendable), there's a chief correspondent's post with your name on it at Korea Central TV. Kim Jong Un goes almost as nuts over this kind of obsequious fawning and hero-worship mythology as your favorite prezzy does.
Oh, by the way, I just heard (from anonymous reliable sources close to Faux News and Reichbart) that Sir Richard Branson's space-travel-for-millionaires firm will soon be offering actual walks on the sun's surface



You might want to sign up quick! 


Spaces are limited.

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

NO REQUIEM FOR A NAZI


My friend John was the first person who ever talked to me about Erich Priebke. An American World War II vet, he surprised me by saying he didn’t know what all the fuss was about. 
SS Captain Erich Priebke
This was back in the mid-‘90s when I’d first moved down to Bariloche in Patagonia, and I was just starting to find out about Priebke from the news reports about Italy’s attempts to extradite him for his role in the massacre that the Nazis had carried out in the Ardeatine Caves in Rome during World War II.
“Well,” I said, “you know, John, he’s a war criminal, a former SS leader, and, if the Italians are right, a mass murderer...”
John chuckled sardonically under his breath—something I’d learned he did when he didn’t believe a word you were saying. He reeled to his feet (we were sitting at his dining room table) and made his way to the kitchen where he kept his gin stashed out of sight of his wife, in a cubbyhole between a cupboard and the woodstove. His wife and mine were out on a walk along the lake and wouldn’t be back for a while so he wasn’t being as shy as usual about his gin. (Cheap white wine was what he favored throughout the day as his ostensible “sole drink of choice,” but the gin was what he used to keep his buzz going from morning to night). He deftly snatched the liter bottle of Gordon’s from its hiding place, poured a water glass half-full and, standing right there by the stove, he drank it down thirstily like water.
“Want another beer?” he asked, clearing his throat, his diction, as always, incredibly unslurred.
“No, I’m good for now,” I said, holding up my half-full can.
“Suit yourself,” he shrugged, adding, “Just grab one out of the fridge when you need it,” and then he meandered back to the table, sat down and poured his water tumbler full of chilled wine from a pitcher that sat on the table between us. The wine he sipped as he thought about where to go next with the conversation. That was the way conversations went with John—no rush, nice and easy. Originally from New Jersey, he hadn’t been in a hurry since 1968, when he’d negotiated a golden handshake from his executive post in Buenos Aires with the Eli Lilly pharmaceuticals firm and moved to the 200 acres of mountainside he’d bought here in Patagonia with a business partner. Back then, they’d bought it for a song from the widow of the former owner, because it was out in the wilderness where nobody wanted to live. He still owned 25 acres of it despite having lived ever since on the profits he’d made from selling off his half a couple of acres at a time, once there was electricity and a better road to get here, and the area started becoming attractive to people with a little money who wanted to get away from it all.
After a moment he chuckled quietly again, but his piercing blue, bloodshot eyes remained serious, unwavering. “Erich’s no murderer. He’s one of the nicest, most respectable guys you’d ever want to meet. I remember him from when he had his deli and butcher shop in town. Everybody liked him. And he’s been a pillar of the community, head of the German school and all that.”
“Just your everyday, good-guy storm trooper, huh?” I goaded.
“Oh hell, Dan,” he said, “he’s no more a storm trooper than I am.”
“Not strictly true, John,” I said.
“And he wasn’t any kind of Nazi leader like they’re trying to make him out to be,” he went on, ignoring and immediately forgiving my sarcasm. “He was a pipsqueak captain, an administrative one at that. He was a nobody. Whatever he did, he was just doing what he was told to do.”
“That argument hasn’t flown since the Nuremberg Trials,” I said. “And it doesn’t fly in the American Army either. I was a soldier like you. I know that you’re only obliged to follow all lawful orders. Somebody tells me to shoot a hog-tied civilian in the back of the head, that’s not an order, it’s a moral choice and I have to make it. I can opt to refuse.”
Again, the low, bitter chuckle, almost under his breath. “That’s pretty naïve of you, Dan. I mean for a former big-city newsman, at least. One thing’s the theory in the rule book. Another’s being at war.” His voice quavered when he said, “I did some things I’m not very proud of when I was following Patton’s ass through Europe, and I imagine your dad did too.”
“He never talks about it,” I said.
“With good reason, I’m sure,” he responded.
“So you were with Patton?”
“Sort of...like I say, behind him, kind of.”
“I guess everybody was sort of behind Patton,” I said. “To hear my dad tell it, Patton breezed through Europe with a convoy of tanks and then bragged about winning the war.”
This time John’s laugh was genuine. “Well, I never saw him out there directing traffic like they had George Scott doing in the movie, at least,” he snorted. He drained his glass and filled it with wine again. He sat there sipping his drink in silence, but I could almost hear him thinking. On his battered old Zenith stereo, Satchmo was singing “Jelly Roll”. There was always jazz on the stereo at John’s house. He’d shuffle back and forth for hours on end between his two loves, white wine and old-time jazz music. Sitting there at the table, the music coming from behind him, in the living room, he cupped his right ear, grinned and said, “I love this tune,” and then, in his scratchy, froggy, tenor voice, he softly sang along for a few bars: “My momma said today...when she went away...you be a goo’ boy, I bring you a toy...’cause I’m Momma’s pride an’ joy...”
Then his face went serious again and he looked me hard in the eyes.
“There was this time, somewhere on the Rhine, I think. We’d been fighting for days. We were exhausted. But by now we were winning. It was toward the end...sometimes house to house. It was ugly. We’d lost some guys. There were guys in our outfit that wanted to burn Germany to the ground. Anyway, one day we took this factory. When we overcame the security, we had our interpreter order everybody in German to come out with their hands up. They didn’t try to run or put up a fight. They came out single file, their hands in the air. All of the sudden this sergeant of ours points his forty-five at this kid at the front—because that’s what he was, just a kid—and shoots him pointblank in the head, right here.” John put his index finger to his left temple. “I was looking right at the kid’s face when he died. It was, like, surprised, his eyes, his expression when his brains flew out the other side of his head, and then he was dead.” John was seeing it, right now, I knew, as if he were there. Tears welled up in his eyes and one spilled over and ran down his cheek. He didn’t bother to wipe it away, maybe didn’t even notice it. It dripped from his chin. He went on: “I yelled, ‘What the hell are you doing? They’re giving up! What the hell’s wrong with you?’ But he just laughed and said, ‘These dumb-assed krauts deserve to die...’”
John rubbed his eyes, shook his head, as if trying to shake the image of that day, perhaps of what followed as well. “Even now,” he said, “I see that boy’s face, and so many other boys’ faces, every night before I fall asleep.” Now he looked at me intensely. “And I’m sure Erich sees the people he killed too, Dan...and the ones he didn’t. He’s a good man. I know him well. War’s hell, Dan. That’s not a metaphor. It’s a fact. You think a mere captain had any real choice in the Nazi army? He had to take part in that massacre or be killed himself for refusing a direct order from Hitler.”
“He had a moral choice, though, John,” I insisted. “He could have chosen death over such a heinous crime.”
John chuckled low and insincerely. “Nobody chooses death in war, Dan. Your only thought is surviving till the end.”
* * *


On the mountain road that leads to my house, 20 clicks from Bariloche, where Erich Priebke not only lived under his own name for half a century following World War II but was also a well-known and highly respected businessman and community leader, there’s a sheet metal plate bearing his name on the post of an electrical transformer. There are actually two transformers on that road. The other one bears the name of another pioneer neighbor and architect, Raúl Bozzarelli. It was the practice of the local electrical cooperative, way back when, to identify the transformers for new areas of service by the surname of the first settler to request it, mainly because in order to have electricity, whoever arrived first had to pay for the installation of the transformer. Accordingly, if the lines are down and you call in for a maintenance crew to be sent out, even today, what the co-op will want to know is if your sector is Bozzarelli or Priebke.
Even today, what the electrical co-op will want to know
is if your sector is Bozzarelli or Priebke.

Although Priebke had a home in town from the late 1940s on, at some point he had also bought about 15 acres of mountainous woodland fronting on the beautiful, glacial Lake Moreno and built himself a fine country home there. After Priebke’s extradition in the ‘90s to Italy for trial on charges of crimes against humanity, a neighbor or two tried to stir up a movement to get Priebke’s name removed from “our” transformer. But in the end, there was no real interest: Besides us, who’d see it, out here in the middle of nowhere? And even if they did, who’d care? Furthermore, the name on that transformer was the surname only and Erich Priebke’s family were still the owners of that land. A moot protest, then. So the sign still says “Priebke” on it, a reminder of the past when Don Erich was thought of as a respected neighbor, not a murderer, and when his family were well known and well liked members of the community, not descendants of a Hitlerian monster.
That piece of land, where the Priebkes’ country home is, shares a property line with 70 acres of forest for which I’m the caretaker. So I used to run into Priebke’s granddaughter walking her dogs on the high road, or driving her little VW Saveiro pickup into town for supplies when she lived there for a time before moving, I’m told, to the United States. Sometimes too, one of his two sons and I would wave hello to each other when he’d come out for a visit to the place. But since Erich Priebke’s conviction in Italy, the only one I see from time to time, caretaker to caretaker, is Don Pedro, the Priebkes’ foreman, who still lives on the spread and is in charge of protecting it for the family.
“The señor hasn’t been out here for several years now,” he said, his voice and face forlorn, when I met up with him while we were both on our rounds one day earlier this year.
“Well, he’s under arrest in Italy, after all, and he’s nearly a hundred years old!” I said.
“No, no,” said Pedro, “I mean his son and his family, the one who still lives here.  It’s very sad. It has all been very terrible for the family.”
So now it’s mostly just Don Pedro...and the Rottweilers that help him keep the poachers away—a case of the past catching up to the present and completely changing the perception of reality.
* * *
Journalist, writer and former National Parks Ranger Abel Basti has been researching the lives of former Nazis in Argentina—and particularly in Bariloche—for the past 20 years now. His research for Hitler in Argentina and the book itself have gained him a reputation as a crackpot among detractors and as a knowledgeable authority among those who have long believed, like him, in cloak and dagger collusion and trade-offs between the post-war US intelligence community and the former Reich that permitted some top Nazis, including—if Basti is to be believed—the Führer himself, to slip through the cracks and live out their days in southern Argentina and Chile.
Basti was sitting in Priebke’s living room interviewing him the day Argentine Federal Police officers arrived at the door carrying a Interpol order with them for the arrest of the then-octogenarian former SS captain. What would ensue was a very long process of extradition demands from Italy and Germany and appeals by Priebke’s attorneys that had the effect of delaying the inevitable for long months. But eventually, all of these tactics failed and the Argentine government, then under President Carlos Saúl Menem, eventually cleared the way for Priebke’s extradition and trial.
Shortly after Priebke’s extradition, going about his duties as a local reporter and correspondent, Basti would be surprised one morning to see a tour bus full of foreign visitors stopped in front of Erich Priebke’s home and hear the tour guide telling the travelers that this was the home of the infamous Nazi leader, Erich Priebke. Basti found this hilarious and immediately started toying with the idea of a satirical work, a sort of travel guide to Nazi points of interest in South America’s best known ski resort—and one of its best known havens for ex-Nazi exiles.
Joking about it with me when we met on the street in town one morning, he asked, half in jest, what I thought of a “Nazi Bariloche” travel guide. Without batting an eye, I said I thought it would sell like hotcakes. A few weeks later, Basti called to say he’d written it and asked if I’d read it, and, if I liked it, write the back cover. The book, with my comments on the back cover, is now in its seventh printing, according to Amazon.
The controversial cover bears an image of the famed Bariloche Civic Center but instead of the equestrian statue of General Julio A. Roca—revered by nationalists as the founder of modern Argentina and reviled by liberals and left-wingers as the author of a veritable genocide waged against the native population—an image of Hitler, in full uniform, right arm raised in a Nazi salute and standing on a pedestal has been photoshopped in.
Shortly after it first came out, a close friend of mine in the tiny local Jewish community told me that Bariloche Jews were furious about it. Why, I wanted to know? Shouldn’t they delight to anything that brought the Nazis to light and smoked them out of their hiding places?
That wasn’t how they viewed it, he told me. Things like this just stirred up the whole thing again and bred enmity. For instance, one of the places that Basti had marked as a Nazi site in his book was precisely where a Jewish couple had rented space for their business. Bariloche was a quiet town. Nobody wanted any trouble.
But Basti’s main business was (and is) finding old Nazis—in recent years his works and documentaries have been published in Germany and elsewhere in Europe, though the United States continues to ignore his claims—and in a town that was a frontier outpost less than half a century old when the war ended and did much of its developing with a post-war wave of immigration, when popular dictator Juan Domingo Perón, a military man of well-known Fascist sympathies, opened the country’s doors to fugitive former members of the Reich—Bariloche is a treasure trove for such an investigator.  Basti’s book, Bariloche Nazi, documents his claims with maps, photos, papers and drawings, so that, although it started out as a joke, it eventually became a serious work that some foreign tourists arrive carrying in their knapsacks or under their arms. But the book’s crown jewel is almost as inaccessible now as then: Incalco Ranch located on Lake Nahuel Huapi, on the opposite shore from Bariloche, the place where Basti claims Adolph Hitler and Eva Braun lived an idyllic existence after the war. It is an exclusive residence that, back then, was accessible only by boat or hydroplane, and it belonged to none other than Argentine businessman Jorge Antonio, one of Perón’s most trusted friends.
* * *

Born in Berlin in 1913, Erich Priebke died earlier this month (October 11), at the age of one hundred. He had been under house arrest (because of his extremely advanced age) in Rome since his conviction in 1996 for his part in the Ardeatine Caves Massacre.
Priebke naïvely thought he could tell his story.
The facts are historically simple if morally complex.  Priebke was a 31-year-old captain in the SS police force, stationed in Rome under the orders of German Commander Herbert Kappler. It was in the latter part of the war, in March of 1944, that Italian Resistance fighters attached to the Gruppi di Azione Partigiana (GAP) attacked a column of SS Military Police troops marching along Rome’s Via Rasella, killing 33 German soldiers by first setting off a bomb near the detachment and then attacking the group with small arms fire and hand grenades.
Although never documented, Commander Kappler is alleged to have received direct orders from the Führer himself to execute ten imprisoned Italian anti-Nazis for every soldier to die as a result of the attack. It was Kappler who compiled the list of 330 people whom the Reich condemned to die in the Ardeatine Caves.

Major Karl Haas (who was an SS Intelligence officer with a well-established reputation for ruthlessness that included sending hundreds of Jews from the region to Auschwitz) and Captain Priebke were placed in charge of rounding the prisoners up. Priebke was specifically charged with checking the list. And although the Italian courts that tried him, in principle, tended to agree that he had been a staff-grade officer following orders, his responsibility for the list and his own participation were what eventually condemned him. During the trial it was established that while the order was to kill ten Italian Partisans for each of the 33 German soldiers killed in the Resistance raid, the number of people killed in the Ardeatine Caves was 335, not 330—with five people not on Kappler’s list having been added by mistake. Furthermore, Priebke admitted to having executed two of the prisoners himself, as did Haas.

Entrance to the Ardeatine Caves in Rome Photo originally posted at
 http://www.flickr.com/photos/antmoose/66450192/
Both Priebke and Haas were captured by the Allies following the war. Interestingly enough, however, while Priebke was held in a British prison camp to be bound over for a war crimes trial for his part in the Ardeatine slayings, Haas went from being a POW to allegedly going to work for US intelligence as a spy against the Soviet Union. Priebke ultimately escaped from the prison camp and, after some time in hiding, in South Tyrol, eventually received help from Bishop Alois Hudal at the Vatican, who reportedly aided him in obtaining false documentation and finding a new home in Argentina. There he would live under his own name for half a century until the team of TV reporter Sam Donaldson of the ABC network in the United States stumbled onto a less than successful clearance table book in which Priebke was described as one of the architects of the Ardeatine Massacre and decided to follow up on the lead, which took them to Bariloche.
Largely unrepentant and always believing that he had only acted on orders and that the people executed at the Ardeatine Caves were, at the time, “terrorists”, Priebke naïvely felt that enough time had passed that he could talk about the incident and gave Donaldson an interview. Once aired on US television, the interview sparked outrage in Italy and the backlash led to Priebke’s arrest and extradition. Curiously enough, former Major Haas was called as a mere witness for Priebke’s trial. But as a result of his testimony, he eventually also ended up being charged and tried, and died under house arrest in a rest home near Rome at age 92.
 
* * *

There can be little doubt that Erich Priebke, not a boy but a mature man of 31 at the time of the war, was a thoroughly committed SS officer and he played a key role in the organization of one of the most heinous Nazi war crimes of World War II. Nor can there be any doubt that, in trying him for his part in the Ardeatine Caves Massacre, Italy was doing long-delayed justice for a terrible atrocity.

But where justice would appear to have turned to vengeance was when Priebke died this month. The Vatican (perhaps as damage control for the role of one of its own number in Priebke’s escape and exile) reportedly issued an unprecedented ban on his funeral’s being held anywhere in Rome. Priebke’s own native city also refused his body, fearing his tomb might become a pilgrimage site for neo-Nazis. In the end, his funeral was eventually arranged—not without violent protests—by a Catholic splinter, the Society of Saint Pius X—a group alleged to have Fascist and anti-Semitic sympathies. Their plan was to inter the former Nazi in the Italian city of Albano Laziale. Since protesters kept the body from being buried there, it was eventually decided that Priebke's remains would be laid to rest in an undisclosed location.
But the cruelest cut of all, I feel, was Argentina’s refusal to repatriate Erich Priebke’s body. His last wish had been to be laid to rest next to his wife in the country that he had called home for half a century after the war. Despite the fact that the founder of the current ruling party, General Juan Domingo Perón, was clearly the key to the immigration of fleeing former Nazis in the post-war years, and although the Peronist government of Carlos Menem that preceded the current Peronist-led administration upheld the concept of “due obedience” that kept members of Argentina’s former military regime from being tried for human rights violations and murder until the current Peronist administration overturned that amnesty, the administration of Cristina Kirchner felt perfectly justified in turning down the Priebke family’s request that they be permitted to bring his remains home. Considering that congressional elections (where ruling FPV candidates aren’t expected to do well) are to be held in this country next Sunday, and that the current administration has blatantly used its early human rights stand to cover up abuses of power of every color ever since, not accepting the return of Priebke’s body seemed hypocritical at best and like political grandstanding at worst. What part could his family possibly have had, I asked myself, in the cruel and misguided decisions and choices that a young army officer made nearly 70 years ago? Didn’t the sentence against Priebke end with his death and shouldn’t his family have the right to mourn and bury him?
I was immediately reminded of Gabriel García Márquez’s novel, Hojarasca (Leaf Storm), in which a fallen physician’s perceived sins against the town where he once practiced lead him to live the life of a recluse, locked away in his home, and to eventually commit suicide. But even then, the townspeople refuse to forget his misdeeds, and ban anyone from burying him. So great is their hatred that they say there will be no burial for the man “until they can smell his corpse rotting in his house from the other side of the street.”
In the story that García Márquez tells, the moral conundrum has to do, precisely, with when “enough is enough”, when blind justice turns to blind vengeance, and when the actions of a “just” society turn nearly as hateful as the sentiments behind the crimes they condemn.
To my mind those are questions that emerged this month too from the refusal of the countries of his birth and choice to afford Erich Priebke a proper Christian burial in the presence of his family, no matter what crimes he was convicted of and sentenced for in life. And perhaps another question that this begs is how much more we know of compassion in dealing with his family and his death than Priebke himself did in making at least one major decision of his life.
 

Sunday, May 19, 2013

THE ESSENTIALS OF DEMOCRACY


 
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Voltaire, as quoted by Evelyn Beatrice Hall in "The Friends of Voltaire" (1906, pub. S. G. Tallentyre)
Note: All of the journalists pictured here are staunch critics of the non-democratic tactics of the current Argentine government. Only by defending their right to dissent, no matter what our own political or philosophical positions might be, can we defend and protect our own democratic, civil and human rights.   
 
As I reflected on the subject of this editorial essay, researching and poring over the events of the past several weeks, I reached the conclusion that perhaps the most succinct truth at which one could arrive is that the time for fearing that Argentina might be headed for the de facto establishment of a “popular” dictatorship may be over. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, in recent weeks we have witnessed clear signs of the impending demise of democracy in the thirtieth anniversary year of its reestablishment by the hand of President Raúl Alfonsín, the first and, arguably, last genuine democrat to lead Argentina following more than seven years of murderous military rule from the mid-seventies through the early eighties.
Jorge Lanata, shocking revelations.
Clearly, democracy was undermined with the Constitutional Reform introduced by the government of Peronist Carlos Menem, which, despite any beneficial amendments introduced, was all about the illegitimate re-election of the former president, a move that allowed him to remain in power for a full decade—ten years steeped in corruption and marked by scandal, and by botched and fixed privatizations and sellouts that cost the country dearly. And it is clear too that a politically manipulated popular coup that toppled his successor—Radical Party leader and former Buenos Aires Mayor Fernando de la Rúa—further undermined democracy by demonstrating that even a leader from a normally ultra-democratic Radical Party was capable of confiscating the private property (and life savings) of the country’s population, that  certain sectors of Peronism weren’t above exploiting and encouraging chaos and insurrection in order to keep any other legitimately elected party from remaining in office and that the vast majority of Argentines were still willing to stand by and do nothing when violence and de facto tactics were employed to wrest power from the hands of a legally elected administration.
Democracy also trembled and quaked to its foundations in the chaotic game of musical chairs that followed the De la Rúa government’s fall. Since in the midst of the political and financial crisis with which the Radical administration was faced Vice President Carlos “Chacho” Alvarez had resigned before the final break-up, once ousted, De la Rúa was first repla
Nelson Castro, criticism with class.
ced by Senate President and opposition Peronist politician Ramón Puerta, on December 20, 2001. Just three days later, in circumstances that were less than clear to the public at large, San Luis Governor and Peronist politician Adolfo Rodríguez Saá was appointed by Congress to replace Puerta. But that ill-fated presidency only lasted a week, with Rodríguez Saá citing “lack of political support” for his resignation, which he tendered on December 30. Puerta was asked to step in temporarily once again, but this time refused. So, Rodríguez Saá was ultimately replaced by Lower House President (and Peronist politician) Eduardo Camaño, who convened a special session of Congress to elect a new president. It was thus that, on January 2, 2002, the presidential sash was placed over the shoulder of Peronist leader and former Buenos Aires Governor Eduardo Duhalde—the self-same Peronist candidate who had lost the presidential elections to De la Rúa in 1999.
Duhalde served out the rest of what should have been De la Rúa’s term—a little over fifteen months—and called early elections in September of 2003. He himself was not in the running but remained a heavyweight figure in the Peronist Party and his backing was bound to give a major boost to whomever he chose as his favorite to win the elections. Well-known and popular former race-driver and long-time Santa Fe Governor Carlos Reutemann was Duhalde’s first choice, but turned his Peronist colleague down. In the midst of a still confusing and hostile political climate following the 2001 political debacle, Duhalde was looking for someone either highly popular or largely unknown as his heir. After Reutemann said no, his choice fell to Néstor Kirchner, whose less than savory reputation was a matter of record in the deep Patagonian south, but who, as the obscure governor of the sparsely-populated Santa Cruz Province was a political unknown in much of the rest of the country. 
Luis Majul, tireless investigator of the man he
called "The Owner"
Of the five candidates—in addition to Kirchner, former President Carlos Menem, economist Ricardo López Murphy, former President-for-a-week Adolfo Rodríguez Saá, and anti-corruption crusader and Congresswoman Elisa Carrió—Kirchner came in second to Menem with a scant 22 percent of the vote compared with Menem’s 24 percent. Neither of the leading candidates had enough votes to win without second-round voting, but fearing defeat in the run-off, Menem dropped out of the race, thus permitting Kirchner to win by default and by the skin of his teeth, as perhaps the least voted-for president in the country’s history. And so began what has become known as the Kirchner era.
While Néstor Kirchner sought, in his four-year term, to give at least the impression of serious government, maintaining renowned and internationally respected technocrats like Roberto Lavagna and Martín Redrado in key economic cabinet positions, and tending to respect their advice, international experience and authority, as well as winning liberal praise at home and abroad by rescinding laws introduced by Alfonsín and Menem to protect all but the highest ranking officers of the military dictatorship from prosecution,  it has since become fairly clear that his ulterior motive was to create a political empire in which he and his wife and current President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner would attempt to pass the administration back and forth between them indefinitely, with the help of populist measures, an acquiescent opposition and an increasingly loyal following within the Peronist movement. It has also become fairly clear, through detailed investigations carried out by journalist Jorge Lanata and other reporters, that the Kirchners have sought to reconstruct the same corrupt boss-rule model of government on a national scale that made them all-powerful and untouchable in Santa Cruz Province. Lanata’s meticulous probe has shown just how deep-reaching this kind of corruption has been and the huge price the country’s citizens have paid—among other things, in vastly overpriced public works and the kickbacks that they have engendered, in currency-by-the-bale spirited out of the country in money laundering operations, in expropriation scams and fixed public tenders, in juggled statistics and outright prevarication to try and belie the economic devastation that such practices have wreaked, etc.
Far from reining the government in and forcing it to conform to the dictates of democratic government and the rule of law, revelations of corruption in high places and ever more vocal criticism in the press and through massive anti-government demonstrations seem only to have emboldened President Cristina Kirchner, her zealously accommodating ministers and secretaries and members of the quasi-fascist-model youth movement called “La Cámpora”—led by the Kirchners’ son, Máximo—whose members the President is reported to refer to as “my little soldiers” and which has infiltrated every level of government bureaucracy. It is as if, faced with the revelations of corruption and abuse of power demonstrated by some of the country’s top reporters, Mrs. Kirchner and her cohorts have been somehow liberated, and are bent on demonstrating that they have no sense of shame whatsoever.
Alfredo Leuco, blunt critical analysis
On the contrary, it would appear that, now that the jig is up, in terms of the scandalous revelations of private investigations that have emerged in recent weeks, the Kirchner government as a whole and President Kirchner in particular, are set on showing just how autocratic and uncompromising they can be. Nor is this surprising, since the President and her circle are born of a bastardized political philosophy that emerges from a volatile mix of the callous disregard for democratic principles often demonstrated by her party’s founder, General Juan Domingo Perón, and the terrorist gang philosophy of the 1970s neo-fascist Montoneros guerrilla organization—to which Cristina Kirchner has claimed to have belonged, despite this claim’s having proven more wishful thinking and fantasy than fact.
Joaquín Morales Solás, meticulous editorial logic.
In regard to this last, more “Monto-never” than Montonera, back in those days, Cristina and her husband are widely and convincingly reported to have already been busy building their power base and fortune as intermediaries in foreclosure operations handled through their Santa Cruz law offices, in connection with the now infamous Central Bank Circular 1050. This measure was introduced by the military government that overthrew President Isabel Perón in 1976, and pegged mortgage loans to the dollar-peso exchange rate, which, following a sharp peso devaluation in the latter years of the regime, resulted in such soaring increases in loan payments that people all over the country were forced to hand their homes over to key banks and realtors. In other words, far from fighting the military—despite their alleged Peronist Youth membership—it would appear that the Kirchners knew precisely how to make peace with the regime and their consciences, exploit that dark era and use the dictatorship to stunning advantage in accumulating a sound base for their eventually vast fortune.
Perhaps this early bent for “ethical flexibility,” accommodation in benefit of personal gain and hypocrisy for the purposes of political and economic expediency explains a great deal about how a ten-year-long administration that has founded its now waning popularity on relatively meager social handouts and a reputation for being the paladin of Argentine human rights stands accused of some of the worst and most all-pervasive corruption and abuse of power since the fall of the former ‘Proceso’ dictatorship. The extent of the de facto power that this government has gained was patent this past week in ever stronger rumors of plans by Kirchnerists to stage a hostile takeover of the major multimedia group (Clarín) that is currently partnering with Lanata. And more telling still is Lanata’s apparent fear that the government has so manipulated the law that it could actually get away with such a takeover, thus silencing the principal medium against advancing Kirchnerism and gagging the journalists whose investigations have established proof of corruption and abuse of power at the highest levels. Lanata’s worst fears were clear in a plea he made to his enormous viewing audience at the end of his show, Periodismo para Todos a week ago:  "I want to ask a favor of all of you,” he said. “I want to ask you to do something. If this happens [the silencing of Clarín], if they wipe us out with a signature from one day to the next, do something! Don’t just let it happen. And I’m not asking that you do something for me. I’m asking you to do it for yourselves!
I couldn’t agree more and add a request of my own to anyone who reads this. Don’t just keep accepting corruption and abuse in Argentina as inevitable. Don’t keep considering uncompromising professionals like Lanata (Nelson Castro, Joaquín Morales Solá, Alfredo Leuco, Luis Majul, et al) to be naïve, self-interested, crazy or all three. Don’t keep thinking there’s nothing you can do, that it’ll all go away on its own, or that whatever the government does doesn’t affect you personally (all you have to do is go to the supermarket and witness week to week inflation or try to buy dollars to save a little of your purchasing power from devastation in order to know that’s not true). Remember that the ruling party feels empowered by your apathy, that the traditional opposition is as acquiescent as it is because it doesn’t feel your hot breath on the back of its neck, that new reformist movements don’t emerge to cleanse the political scene because they find no backing among a self-defeating people, that corruption is always eventually found out but that silence is what allows it to continue, that a free press is only possible when a free-thinking people insists upon it, that freedom of expression isn’t a privilege but a right and that demanding it, exercising it and fighting for it is the only way to maintain it, and that without it, there can be no democracy.
Democracy is a state not unlike pregnancy or life itself. It exists or it doesn’t. There is no such thing as “somewhat democratic” and being democratic means playing within certain rules, not bending the law to fit whatever party or ruler happens to be in power, respecting and zealously upholding checks and balances and the three branches of government, honoring and defending the position of the minority even when it is diametrically opposed to your own, and defending freedom of expression and of the press as a means of safeguarding democracy from tyranny. 
Tyranny and censorship are mutually self-sustaining and if enough people do nothing to take part in, protest for and defend by all means necessary the search for truth and justice, then they can only blame themselves for having the autocratic rulers and the power-fawning media that they deserve.