AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2000, Pages 43-46

Other PeopleÕs Mail

Some letters by or to other people are as informative for our readers as anything we might write ourselves.

ÒTime to DealÓ

To the Boston Globe, May 2, 2000 (as submitted).

Your editorial ÒTime to DealÓ on April 27 called for the Palestinians to renounce their claims to their property plundered by Israel in 1948. How do you reconcile that with your continued support for the restitution of Jewish property plundered by the Nazi and Communist regimes in Eastern Europe? How do you reconcile that with your Web site feature calling for a review of the Museum of Fine ArtÕs holdings for art plundered from Jewish Europeans by the Nazis?

Is it because you have a double standard? Or is it because you consider the Palestinians children of a lesser God who do not deserve the restitution of their stolen property despite the over 100 U.N. resolutions affirming their right to these properties? Or maybe, in your opinion, it is not OK for the Nazis to steal private property, but it is OK for the Israeli government to do so?

Issam Nashashibi, San Diego, CA

Missing the Mark

To The Washington Post , May 19, 2000 (as submitted).

The PostÕs editorial, ÒWest Bank StoryÓ (May 18), totally missed the mark and stands as a stunning departure from previous editorials that at least attempted to be Òbalanced.Ó Before delivering judgment on whether Palestinian rhetoric is ÒmaximalistÓ or whether Palestinian protests were simply a form of implied extortion, you would do well to recall the facts.

The Palestinian people agreed to an historic compromise: to accept 21 percent of the land of Mandate Palestine as the future Palestinian state. At Madrid, they agreed to achieve settlement based on U.N Resolutions 242 and 338. They were led to further compromise at Oslo, Hebron, Taba, Cairo, Hebron II, Wye and Sharm el-Sheikh. How much more compromise can these beleaguered people be expected to make?

You assert that the Palestinians are not being ÒrealisticÓ to expect that Israel would ÒcedeÓ all of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Since when has it become unrealistic to expect the application of international law? The dictionary defines ÒcedeÓ as handing over of something to which no one holds title or ownership. Israel holds no title to the Palestinian territories conquered in 1967 (including East Jerusalem). On the contrary, in accordance with U.N Resolutions 242 and 338, and based on the internationally accepted principle of the Òinadmissibility of acquisition of territory by force,Ó these areas cannot be annexed or absorbed. A better verb would have been evacuate, return or withdraw.

International law also prohibits the establishment of settlements; denial of access to resources, including water; confiscation of property; demolition of homes; and denial of access to property. Yet the Palestinians continue to endure all of these and more. The Palestinian people know disappointment only too well. The Post should have begun where it ended. A peace deal that does not comport with the minimal Palestinian expectation of justice will not endure. The PalestiniansÕ ÒminimalÓ conception of justice is no different from oursÑthe application of international law and of human rights. Palestinians and Israelis need and deserve a secure peace. It is of no service to either people to promote a peace that flouts international law and ignores justice.

Heidi Shoup, Executive Director, Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine, Washington, DC

Regarding Right of Return for Palestinian Refugees

To Prime Minister Jean Chretien, Ottawa, Canada, May 17, 2000.

A peaceful demonstration on Parliament Hill is taking place today, May 15, 2000, for the 52nd commemoration of al-Nakba, the 1948 Catastrophe, in which over 750,000 Palestinians became refugees. At the end of the Six-Day War in 1967, the Palestinians experienced another series of mass deportations. The total number of Palestinian refugees has reached 5,115,095 (UNRWA registered: 3,677,882; of these 1,194,512 living in refugee camps) and keeps growing rapidly.

May 15, 2000 is a day in which we remind ourselves and the world of the 52 years that Palestinian refugees have endured in exile, ravages of war, oppression, denial of national identity and racism. As chair of the Refugee Working Group (RWG), the Canadian government must unequivocally help end the suffering of the Palestinian refugees.

We would like to remind the Canadian government that:

¥ The right of the Palestinian refugees and the uprooted to return to their homes is an inalienable right and has been affirmed by the U.N. Resolution No. 194 over 110 times since 1948.

¥ The Right of Return is essentially an individual right which cannot be delegated, diminished, reduced or forfeited by any representation on behalf of the Palestinians in any agreement or treaty.

¥ The Right of Return is not substituted or affected in any way by the establishment of a Palestinian state in any form.

¥ Compensation is not a substitute for return. Rather, in addition to the right of return, refugees are entitled to compensation.

We therefore appeal to the Canadian government to openly:

¥ Recognize and support by all available means the right of the Palestinians for compensation and to return home.

¥ Not support or recognize any outcome of negotiations which may lead to an agreement that forfeits any part of the right of return of the refugees and the uprooted to their homes from whence they were expelled in 1948, or their due compensation, and to not accept compensation as a substitute for return.

¥ Support due reparations for the psychological suffering, the material losses and damages and war crimes which the refugees endured for 52 years in accordance with international law and legal precedents.

Mohammad Barakat and Rabie Masri and the undersigned organizations:

Islamic Association for Palestine, Dallas, TX; Middle East Discussion of Carleton University; the Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights (SPHR) of Montreal and over 80 activist groups

Overcome With Joy

To The Orlando Sentinel, May 24, 2000 (as submitted).

IÕm overjoyed today with the final retreat of the Israeli army and its ally, the South Lebanon Army militia (SLA), from all south Lebanon and especially from my beloved birthplace, Jdeidet Marjayoun, which has been only in my conscience and dreams, endlessly, for the past 22 years.

This summer IÕm going, earlier, to Lebanon with maximum pride and dignity. IÕm free at last and so are the Lebanese, thanks to the Lebanese resistance, the Lebanese army, the U.N. forces, and all Lebanese citizens who have greatly suffered in the heroic struggles and losses of daily life. And the first thing IÕll do is go, fly, to my lovely city and visit the graves of my family members, and then, like the pope, bend to the ground and kiss the soil which holds the remains of everything and everybody precious to me and to my children and grandchildren, and give thanks to God.

My only hope and prayer is that the Lebanese army will ultimately fill the sudden void which was created by the Israeli departure and take full control of all the towns and villages and boundaries, to protect (with the U.N.) the worn-out people and spread peace, freedom and prosperity with a normal life to all our heroic people.

Nuha Marchi, Orlando, FL

Accurate Diagnosis

To the Orlando (FL) Sentinel, May 18, 2000 (as published).

As a physician who has treated the casualties of the Arab-Israeli conflict, I find columnist Charley ReeseÕs diagnosis (ÒOnce Truth Is on the Table, Peace Negotiations Will CollapseÓ) of the West BankÕs map of Palestinian apartheid land as ÒmeaslesÓ to be accurate. But unlike with the measles, the Palestinians have little hope of recovering land or peace.

Americans are denied the truth about this conflict because of the overwhelming influence in our government and news media of Jewish Americans who were not victims of the Holocaust and may never even have visited Israel. Their romanticized support of Israel at all costs (mainly our tax dollars) has given Israel the chutzpah to launch wars, annex lands, demolish homes, build illegal settlements and, through our pandering politicians, defy world opinion and United Nations resolutions calling for the return of occupied land to the Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese.

Despite dozens of U.N. resolutions, which we supported, it is Israel and Jewish Americans who will determine the land, future and water for the Palestinians. The Palestinians have no Holocaust, no news-media or Hollywood support, and no constituency to support them. As Reese stated, they are expected to accept the crumbs of what was once their land.

Truth is the first casualty of war.

Mohamed Khodr, MD, Winchester, VA

More on LebanonÕs Litani River

To The Toronto Globe and Mail, May 27, 2000 (as submitted).

David CooperÕs assertion (letter, May 26) that during the 12 months before IsraelÕs 1982 invasion of Lebanon ÒPLO artillery attacks launched from southern Lebanon killed six Israelis and injured more than 80Ó is incorrect. In fact, the only Israeli casualty was a soldier who was killed when his jeep hit a land mine in Lebanon. (As a consequence of its 1978 invasion, Israel controlled a five-mile strip of southern Lebanon through Lebanese surrogates.)

Despite repeated Israeli provocations (according to the U.N., 2,125 violations of Lebanese airspace, 652 violations of Lebanese territorial waters and bombing of alleged PLO centers), the PLO scrupulously observed the U.S.-brokered cease-fire that had been in effect since July 24, 1981 until it was forced to retaliate when Israel bombed the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps on June 4 and 5, 1982, killing over 200 people.

Using the attempted murder of its ambassador to London on June 3 by members of the Fatah Revolutionary Council (a group totally outside the PLO led by Abu Nidal, one of Yasser ArafatÕs worst enemies) as a pretext, Israel invaded Lebanon on June 6, 1982. Nearly 20,000 Lebanese and Palestinians were killed (80 percent of whom were civilians) and hundreds of thousands of additional refugees fled northward to join those driven out by Israel in 1978.

IsraelÕs real reasons for invading Lebanon were to shatter Palestinian morale in the occupied West Bank and Gaza by destroying the PLO; to set up a pro-Israel Phalangist puppet government in Beirut; and to fulfill the Zionist objective (as advocated by Herzl, Ben-Gurion and others) of extending its borders to LebanonÕs Litani River.

Gary D. Keenan, Vancouver, B.C, Canada

Description of ÒA Ruthless DictatorÓ

To The Washington Post, June 26, 2000 (as published).

I found the description of Syrian President Hafez Al-Assad as Òa ruthless dictatorÓ and the claim that Òhistorians will have to scour the record to find any positive traitsÓ in him petty and insulting [editorial, June 11]. If The Post could not present a balanced portrait, it could at least show a little respect for the deceased and for millions of Syrians who genuinely mourned their presidentÕs passing.

President Al-Assad was devoted to his work. He lived modestly, despite the luxuries his office might have bestowed upon him. He was not corrupt. He was a remarkable intellect. And if he was Òreliably intransigent,Ó as The Post said, it was because he could not be bribed into surrendering the Syrian and Arab national rights he genuinely held dear for a couple of extra bucks and the blessing of the United States.

Laura Drake, McLean, VA

CPJ Condemns Press Restrictions

His Excellency Abderrahamane Youssoufi, Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Morocco, Rabat, May 18, 2000 (slightly abridged).

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) is gravely concerned about government restrictions on press freedom in Morocco this year. During the past four months, Moroccan authorities have taken punitive measures against the press, including the censorship of newspapers and the criminal prosecution of journalists.

Most recently, on April 26, a Moroccan court convicted Mustafa Alaoui, editor of the Arabic-language weekly Al-Ousbou, of libeling Foreign Minister Muhammad Ben Aissa, who was formerly MoroccoÕs ambassador to the United States. The case against Alaoui stemmed from an investigative article titled ÒThe House ThatÕs There: Company with Capital of 500 Dirhams Sells Morocco a House Worth Five Million,Ó which appeared in a December 1999 edition of Al-Ousbou. In the article, Alaoui alleged that in 1996 Ben Aissa had arranged for the government to purchase a new ambassadorial residence in Washington through a shady middle company which charged more than twice the homeÕs appraised property value.

Based on the article, Alaoui was sentenced to three months in prison and ordered to pay crippling fines and compensation to Ben Aissa, totaling over U.S. $100,000. The court subsequently banned him from practicing journalism for a period of three years and hewas also ordered to pay fines and compensation of about U.S. $12,000.

While CPJ recognizes the right of individuals to file libel suits to protect their reputations, we do not believe that public figures should be allowed to wield libel statutes in order to shield themselves from public scrutiny. Moreover, it is CPJÕs position that journalists should never face criminal prosecution or be deprived of their right to work because of what they publish. Such practices violate the most fundamental norms for press freedom and stifle the free debate that is essential in a democratic society.

The recent court cases against Alaoui and Khaled Meshbal have occurred at a time when there is a sharp decline in press freedom in Morocco. Since February, CPJ has documented the following cases of government interference in the press:

¥ On Feb. 15, Moroccan authorities blocked distribution of the magazine Jeune Afrique-LÕIntelligent, in apparent response to its recent publication of a letter from a Moroccan expatriate living in Canada that questions King Muhammad VIÕs commitment to political reform.

¥ On March 4, Moroccan censors banned the French daily Le Figaro for one day, apparently in response to an article in that dayÕs issue citing a book that alleged the complicity of former King Hassan II in the 1965 disappearance of Moroccan opposition leader Mehdi Ben Barka.

¥ On April 15, authorities banned distribution of the weekly sister newspapers Le Journal and Al-Sahiffa, both of which are printed in France.

¥ On April 17, the board of directors of the state-controlled television station 2M dismissed three employeesÑfor making an unspecified Òprofessional errorÓ in an April 14 newscast.

The Committee to Protect Journalists, a nonpartisan organization of journalists dedicated to defending press freedom worldwide, views these incidents as grave threats to freedom of expression in Morocco and as flagrant violations of international standards for press freedom. We remind Your Excellency that Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in particular, guarantees journalists the right to Òseek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.Ó

CPJ urges you to adopt the following recommendations aimed at bringing MoroccoÕs practices in line with international standards for a free press:

¥ Guarantee the right of journalists to report news and opinion without state reprisal, including the dissemination of a diversity of views, even if these views are opposed to or critical of prevailing state policies;

¥ Cease all state prosecutions of journalists in response to their publication of news and opinion and examine all legal options at your disposal to ensure that the sentences handed down against Mustafa Alaoui and Khaled Mechbal are reversed in accordance with international press freedom standards;

¥ End state censorship of newspapers and other publications.

Ann K. Cooper, Executive Director, and Joel Campagna, Program Coordinator, Middle East and North Africa, The Committee to Protect Journalists, New York, NY

Reply to Hebrew University

To Professor Menachem Magidor, President, Hebrew University, May 18, 2000.

I read with interest the reply you have been sending to people concerned about Hebrew UniversityÕs support for the demolition of the home of the Aqel family in occupied eastern Jerusalem, in order to extend your campus. You make a number of claims and statements which require a response.

You mention that Òthe background to this story is long and complex.Ó Indeed it is. You explain only that: ÒThe Aqel familyÕs house is on part of a tract of land which had been expropriated after the Six-Day War and given to Hebrew University,Ó and you claim that, ÒPrior to 1948, the Hebrew University owned much of the land on Mount Scopus.Ó This may or may not be the case, but as far as anyone can tell, the Hebrew University did not own the Aqel family land, and pointedly you do not claim that the university owned this particular plot. You do admit, however, that Israel ÒexpropriatedÓ it after 1967. As an occupying power Israel certainly has no right to expropriate the land or demolish the house under any circumstances.

But let us suppose only for the sake of argument that Hebrew University did own the land prior to 1948, or that the Aqel family home (or Òillegal structureÓ as you term it) were somehow impinging on your rights. You seem to suggest that this gives the university the right to recover Òits land,Ó even, in this case, by calling on the occupation authorities to demolish the house and restore the rights you claim by force. Does this position mean that you also support the millions of Palestinians whose land was expropriated both after 1948 and 1967 to recover their land and property, throughout Jerusalem both east and west?

Look to the north from where you sit, Professor Magidor, to the settlements of French Hill; to the west, to MaÕalot Dafna, Ramat Eshkol, Ramot, to the charming Arab houses of Romema, Lifta and BaqÕa; perhaps even further, if you dare, to Deir Yassin and Tantura. Look now to the east, to MaÕale Adumim: was it not just yesterday that the Jahalin Bedouin were ethnically cleansed in an equally ÒsensitiveÓ way to expand this monstrous presence? And south to East Talpiot, Gilo and Har Homa. Did not all these places in ÒgreaterÓ Jerusalem have Palestinian inhabitants who owned land and houses, orchards and gardens, shops and factories? Maybe you and your family spend some idle hours on the weekend in the shopping mall at Malha or enjoy a drive in the lush forests near Ain Karim? Do you remember the people who once lived there? Do you also support their right to recover what is theirs, that you so easily claim for yourself? It is astonishing to me that you dare claim for your institution the right to dispossess once again the Aqel family, who were already dispossessed in 1948.

Finally, you tell those who have written to you: ÒIt is also a pity that people of good intentions such as yourself are manipulated and used for political purposes.Ó I think it takes considerable disingenuousness to claim that the Israeli effort to cleanse the last Palestinian enclave from Mount Scopus is anything but political. In the best case, you are a man of good intentions and integrity. But then it would be you who is being manipulated and used by the expansionist and racist Olmert administration. In the worst case, you are an active participant in the effort to de-Arabize Jerusalem. In either case you have the power to stop it.

Ali Abunimah, Chicago, IL

Elie and the Right of Return

To Professor Elie Wiesel, Boston University, Boston, MA, Apr. 17, 2000.

I regret that you were unable to attend the Right of Return Conference held at Boston University on April 8. Edward Said, Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, and Ilan Pappe were there, among many other notable presenters. In the evening we held a candlelight vigil to commemorate the 52nd anniversary of the massacre at Deir Yassin where over 100 Palestinian men, women and children were murdered by the Irgun and the Stern Gang.

Although you have written with pride at having worked for the Irgun during the massacres and for many months thereafter, 52 years is long enough to recognize that the murder and pillage the Irgun inflicted at Deir Yassin was truly a crime against humanity. As a journalist working for Zion in Kanf, the publication of the Irgun, you learned the truth of the carnage inflicted on the innocent villagers of Deir Yassin. Over the years you have written literally volumes Against Silence and yet you have never divulged your knowledge of the massacre or expressed any regret of its having occurred.

Our organization believes that in the name of peace and reconciliation the truth of the Palestinian history must also be recognized. The dead villagers of Deir Yassin lie within sight of the most famous Holocaust Memorial at Yad Vashem. But they were never properly buried and there is no memorial for them. Yet, as the Right of Return Conference clearly showed, they will never be forgotten.

We Jews and non-Jews of Deir Yassin Remembered ask you to publicly recognize the crime committed by your employer at Deir Yassin and to denounce those revisionists, like Morton Klein and the Zionist Organization of America, who deny there ever was such a massacre.

I know you will be visiting our colleges on May 16. I hope that you will have a few minutes to meet with me and I hope that in your public lecture you will address these concerns.

Daniel A. McGowan, Director, Deir Yassin Remembered, Geneva, NY

Refuting the ÒSavvy TravelerÓ

Dear ÒSavvy Traveler,Ó NPR, June 23, 2000.

In her feature story ÒpostcardÓ which is mostly about India, Maxine Davis wrote about her parentsÕ travels, reminiscing, ÒMy parents saw Israel when it was still desert and Japan before cars.Ó

I can understand the part about Japan without cars, but at exactly what point in time did her parents see Israel when it was Òstill desertÓ?

It couldnÕt have been in 1946. That was the year that Walter C. Lowdermilk, assistant chief of U.S. Soil Conservation Service, examined Palestine and compared it to California, except that Òthe soils of Palestine were uniformly betterÓ [PalestineÕs Economic Future: A Review of Progress and Prospects (London, UK: Percy Lund Humphries & Co., Ltd., 1946), pp 19-23.]

It couldnÕt have been in 1945, when Palestine had over 600,000 dunums of land planted with olive trees, producing nearly 80,000 tons of olives, and accounting for one percent of the olive oil production for the world [Statistical Abstract of Palestine, 1944-45, (Department of Statistics, Government of Palestine), p. 225], and produced nearly 245,000 tons of vegetables [A Survey of Palestine, for the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, Vol. I, pp. 325-26].

It couldnÕt have been in 1943, when Palestine produced 280,000 tons of fruit, excluding citrus fruits [Statistical Abstract of Palestine, 1944-45, p. 226].

It couldnÕt have been in 1942, when Palestine produced nearly 305,000 tons of grains and legumes [A Survey of Palestine, Vol. I, p. 320]. It couldnÕt have been in 1939, when Palestine exported over 15 million cases of citrus fruit [A Survey of Palestine, Vol. I, p. 337].

But maybe Ms. DavisÕs parents went to Israel/Palestine more than 60 years ago. Could it have been Òa desertÓ then, I wonder?

Well, they couldnÕt have gone in the early 1900s and found a desert, because Moshe Dayan pointed out that ÒJewish villages were built in the place of Arab villagesÉThere is not one place built in this country that did not have a former Arab populationÓ [HaÕaretz interview, April 4, 1969].

It couldnÕt have been in 1893. That was the year the British consul advised his government of the value of importing trees from Jaffa to improve production in Australia and South Africa [quoted in Marwan R. Beheiry, ÒThe Agricultural Exports of Southern Palestine, 1885-1914,Ó Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 10, No. 4, 1981, p. 67].

It couldnÕt have been in 1887, when Lawrence OliphantÕs visit to the Esdralon Valley prompted him to marvel at the Òhuge green lake of waving wheat, with its village-crowned mounds rising from it like islands; and it presents one of the most striking pictures of luxuriant fertility which is possible to conceiveÓ [quoted from Ibrahim Abu-Lughod, ed., The Transformation of Palestine (Chicago, IL: Northwestern Press, 1971), p. 126].

It couldnÕt have been any time between 1856 and 1882, because the German geographer Alexander Scholch found that in those years, ÒPalestine produced a relatively large agricultural surplus which was marketed in neighboring countriesÓ and to Europe [Alexander Scholch, ÒThe Economic Development of Palestine, 1856-1882,Ó Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1981, pp. 36-58]. And in 1859 a British missionary described the southern coast of Palestine as Òa very ocean of wheat,Ó observing that Òthe fields would do credit to British farmingÓ [quoted from James Reilly, ÒThe Peasantry of Late Ottoman Palestine,Ó Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 10 No. 4, 1981, p. 84].

It couldnÕt have been in 1856, when Henry Gillman, the American consul in Jerusalem, suggested that Florida citrus growers could learn from Palestinian grafting techniques [Beheiry, pp. 75-76]. And really, it couldnÕt have been in any time during the 18th or 17th centuries. French economic historian Paul Masson acknowledges that during that time, imports of wheat from Palestine saved France from numerous famines [Beheiry, p. 67].

Could it have been earlier, then? Apparently not. In 1615, Englishman George Sandys described Palestine as a Òland that flows with milk and honey,Ó with Ònot part empty of delight or profitÓ [quoted in Richard Bevis, ÒMaking the Desert Bloom: An Historical Picture of Pre-Zionist Palestine,Ó The Middle East Newsletter, Vol. 2, Feb.-March 1971, p. 4].

In the late 10th century, a visitor wrote, ÒPalestine is watered by the rains and the dew. Its trees and its ploughed lands do not need artificial irrigation. Palestine is the most fertile of the Syrian provinces,Ó [Guy Le Strange, Palestine Under the Muslims (Beirut, Lebanon, Khayat, 1965), p. 28]. Before he died in 986 A.D., Muqqadisi, who lived in Jerusalem, told of Palestinian produce that Òwas particularly copious and prized: fruit of every kind (olives, figs, grapes, quinces, plums, apples, dates, walnuts, almonds, jujubes and bananas), some of which were exported, and crops for processing (sugarcane, indigo and sumac)Ó [quoted in Walid Khalidi, Before Their Diaspora (Washington, DC: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1984), pp. 28-29].

It seems, then, that Ms. Davis is ÒrememberingÓ a ÒdesertÓ land that never existed. The point is, of course, that she (and with her, you) are just propagating a Zionist fabrication that the Zionists Òmade the desert bloom,Ó and so ÒdeserveÓ the land from which they expelled the Palestinians. I hope that next time, you will not inadvertently invite us to travel to lands that never existed, and uncritically accept a mythology that underwrites ethnic cleansing. We travelers need to be more ÒsavvyÓ than that, donÕt you agree?*

(Rev.) G. Simon Harak, S.J. (Society of Jesus), New York, NY

*Most of this information can be found in Issa Nakhleh, Encyclopedia of the Palestine Problem (New York, NY; Intercontinental Books, 1991).

A Plea to Attorney General Reno

To the Hon. Attorney General Janet Reno, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Rm. 4545, Washington, DC 20530-0001, telephone (202) 514-2000, fax (202) 307-6777, May 3, 2000.

We ask that you voice your concern for Anwar HaddamÕs open-ended detention without charge. If the Department of Justice thinks he has committed a crime, charge him and allow him to have his day in court, with the opportunity to respond to the charges and confront his accusers. If you canÕt charge him, release him! This is supposed to be the American way.

Over the past weeks weÕve heard a lot about (what some consider) the excessive use of force/violence in the Elian Gonzales case. The truth is, however, that the momentary and controlled violence employed by the INS to reunite young Elian and his father (something that should have been done months ago) pales in comparison to the ongoing psychological and emotional violence that the INS is committing against the Haddam familyÑand a few others like them in different parts of AmericaÑover the course of years!

El-Hajj MauriÕ Saalakhan, The Peace and Justice Foundation, Washington, DC

Contrary to Our American System of Justice

To Mr. Tamir Sukkary, San Marcos, TX,June 8, 2000.

Thank you for taking the time to contact my office regarding HR 2121, the Secret Evidence Repeal Act. The use of secret evidence in a court of law runs contrary to our American system of justice and deprives defendants of due process rights guaranteed under the United States Constitution. Therefore, I will support this judicial principle prohibiting the admission of secret evidence.

The sixth amendment to the Constitution guarantees certain rights to those who are accused of crimes in the United States. Among these provisions is the Òright to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.Ó It is fundamental to a healthy judicial system that the accused be able to face his accuser and all evidence which has been gathered against him. Keeping secret evidence is a tool of the totalitarian state for which there is no place in a constitutional republic. Only governments which fear their citizensÕ power need recourse to such unjust measures.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts and concerns on this vital issue with me.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), Washington, DC