Read the full story

On July 27th someone hacked hacked into a Facebook group called, “Israel” Is Not A Country!. Delist It From Facebook As A Country!” Responsibility was claimed by the Jewish Internet Defense Force.(JIDF) The JIDF posted the following statement on the group page:

“This group was one of the most vile, antisemitic, pro-terrorist sites on the internet. Moreover, it was the most active hate group of all, heartily promoting hatred, murder, and genocide while proliferating abominable propaganda paralleled only by the fables of Goebbels. While such content clearly violates Facebook’s own Terms of Use and Code of Conduct, provisions that users agree to abide when they register on the site, Facebook refused to take action. Despite thousands of user complaints over the course of eighteen months, Facebook allowed this group and its ubiquitous antisemitic lies to flourish. Facebook’s own negligence and abdication of responsibility gave us no option but to take matters in our own hands.

We wish to be clear – we have no issues with legitimate political discourse so long as it is contextual, comparative and truthful. However, when it comes to encouraging the murder of Jews and purposefully disseminating misinformation to demonize Jews and to delegitimize Israel, there is a moral obligation to remove the platform of such repugnant hate-mongers. Unfortunately, we do not need to search too far back into history to realize that such evils have a real cost in terms of human lives.”

In addition to posting the above statement, the JIDF began deleting the names of all Forty Eight Thousand members of the group. As of last check, there were just over Twenty Thousand names still left on the list. The JIDF would not elaborate on how they have been able to accomplish this on an on-going basis. There apparently has been no response from Facebook to date.

In order to get some insight into the activities and motives of the JIDF with regards to Anti-Semitic and other types of hate speech in the social networking arena, I contacted the group responsible for the hack. A representative of the group agreed to be interviewed on the condition of anonymity.  He related that he has received multiple death threats arising out of his activities in the JIDF.

What is the origin of of the JIDF?

The JIDF started as a grassroots effort at the beginning in 2000. Many of us were in NYC during 9/11, so that had a major impact as well. It began as a mass email campaign. It eventually morphed onto Myspace during the war with Hezbollah in 2006 and protesting the disengagement from Gush Katif/Gaza. Shortly thereafter, we evolved with the technology onto Facebook. Originally it started as just to share news and information about Israel and Jewish issues with a bit of commentary here and there. As we used Facebook, we noticed many of the issues began literally to stare us in the face. Anti-semitic and pro-Jihadist groups were springing up everywhere.

Why JIDF?

The name “JIDF” is a recent development. We liked how it morphed “Jewish” with IDF – especially in light of the contrast between the religious and secular world in Israel and the Jewish world in general.

What are the short and long term goals of the JIDF?

One of our short term objectives is to expose Barack Obama and prevent him from winning the Presidential election. In the long term we hope to expose and fight antisemitism and pro-Jihadist trends on the web, including, but not limited to, the vast array of issues on Facebook, Google/Youtube, Google- Earth, and Wikipedia.

What do you hope to expose about Barack Obama?

We hope to continue to highlight the issues surrounding his terrorist connections as well as his racist and antisemitic church which has supported Hamas and The Reverend Louis Farrakhan.

What is the position of the JIDF on the “Palestinian Question” regarding disputes over occupied lands?

Palestinians should be transferred out of Israeli territories. They can live in any of the other many Arab states. We are against all land concessions to our enemies. We are against the release of terrorist prisoners from Israeli prisons. We are against the arming and funding of our enemies and the negotiation with them. We are for morals, ethics and common sense and feel Israel must truly act as a “light unto the nations” in order for the world to be safe as we feel Israel is truly on the front lines in the war in which Islam has declared upon us

What has the reaction been from the Jewish community here and abroad?

Since the Jewish people are so diverse, the reaction has been diverse from full support to full condemnation.

What about the Muslim Community?

99.9% of Muslims hate us. There have been 4 viable death threats. These threats are not just from non-Jewish Middle Eastern community, but Neo Nazis, etc.

Do you feel social networking groups have the right to question Israel’s right to exist as legitimate social discourse?

Absolutely! Where they cross the line is when they spew hatred and promote violence, murder and genocide. This is happening on Facebook despite 10’s of thousands of complaints and reports.

Do you feel Facebook and other social networking sites are doing enough to monitor groups promoting hate speech?

Facebook has been negligent in this regard. As an organization it has completely abdicated its responsibility to its users. Youtube also needs to do more. They all have rules in place. They should draw the line when people are blatantly promoting hatred, violence, murder, and genocide. (as most of their own rules state) They need to be more efficient with their systems to monitor and remove this type of user-generated content.

How do you respond to those who claim your group is engaging in the exact some rhetoric and conduct that it criticizes?

We disagree. We do not promote hatred, violence, murder or genocide. We do not promote known terrorist entities. We do not misinform. We do not lie nor make up lies. We do not call people “apes and pigs” – like many of the Muslims do. We do not advocate the destruction of countries or of people. The list goes on and on.

Did you break the law when you hacked the Facebook group?

We absolutely broke no laws doing what we did. In fact, we operate with the advice of legal counsel and within the confines of the law.

There seems little doubt that Social Media is the new battle ground for social activism. Social Media is not only the new face of social activism, it is a the new face of ethnic and religious hatred and intolerance on all sides. As social networking groups such a Facebook have sprung up and attracted substantial membership more and more groups taking extreme positions on one subject or another have become popular. Proving this point is the fact that the “Israel Is Not a Country” Facebook group had over forty thousand members at the time it was hacked. Are social networking groups such as Facebook and Youtube doing enough to monitor groups and content advocating extreme political and religous positions that attempt to encourage or incite violence and hatred towards other groups? Are they simply encouraging legitimate social discourse? Contrary to popular belief there is no right of free speech on social netowrking sites. They are for the most part private entities not covered by the First Amendment. The sites have to the right to censor and remove material they deem objectionable. Where do we draw the line between incitement of hate and legitimate debate on religious, ethnic and political issues? Should ther even be a line? Many would argue that the JIDF encourages the same hateful rhetoric that it claims it fights against. Are they attempting to squash legitimate debate? Are they also promoting hate and intolerance? No one is safe. Let the discourse begin.

Jose Medellin is a convicted rapist. Jose Medellin is a convicted murderer. Fourteen years ago he was sentenced to death for participating in the gang rape and murder of Elizabeth Pena, 16 and Jennifer Ertman who was 14. His execution by lethal injection is set for August 5, 2008. The girls had tragically wandered upon a gang initiation. This would seem to be just one more routine execution of which Texas leads the nation. It would also seem that if anyone deserved to be executed, Mr. Medellin should certainly have that place in death penalty lore. There is one minor twist. Mr. Medellin is a Mexican citizen. He was allegedly denied access to the Mexican consulate after his arrest which is a violation of the Vienna Convention. Mr. Medellin was allegedly never told he had the right to see a Mexican consular officer as required by the Convention. The Vienna Convention is an international treaty governing in part the treatment of citizens of different nations outside of their home countries. The United States is a signatory to this treaty.

In a ironic diplomatic and political twist, the normally pro-capital punishment Bush administration is fighting tooth and nail to save the life of Mr. Medellin. The administration claims there a bigger picture at stake. The picture frame encompasses the rights of United States citizens who may find themselves in similar situations in Mexico and other foreign nations. It is the position of the United States that this matter is governed by the Vienna Convention and that an international court should review Mr. Medellin’s situation before any further action is taken. President Bush tried to resolve the issue three years ago by ordering all states to review the cases of 51 Mexican nationals on death row, including Mr. Medellin, as directed by the International Court pursuant to the Vienna Convention. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that Mr. Bush overstepped his authority and that individual states are not bound by international law on this issue. They held that this particular treaty is not “self-executing”. It also found that in the alternative Congress had not enacted any legislation enacting it. The state of Texas is therefore free to proceed with the execution.

The state of Texas could care less about what the International Court has to say about Mr. Medellin’s rights. Texas has taken the position that Mr. Medellin received fair trial in accordance with state law and any international issues are not its concern. Should the state of Texas care about the bigger picture of international politics, diplomacy and the fair treatment of American’s abroad? There is nothing in the United States Constitution requiring the states of Texas to stand down to the Vienna Convention or practice international diplomacy. This is a states rights issue. Mr. Medellin received the full spectrum of Constitutional rights he was entitled to under state law and Supreme Court rulings extending federal law to his situation. Even assuming he had some state right to consular access, how would this have affected his trial? There was no prejudice.

The Bush administration which is always death penalty friendly has to be choking on its position. It wants Texas to put aside sovereign state rights and consider the bigger picture of international diplomacy. This is a very strange bedfellow with a state’s right to impose and carry out the death penalty. A penalty that is not in conflict with either state or federal law. Does the state of Texas have any obligation to look beyond this? Should not the obligation to enforce its own laws and protect its citizenry take precedence? In the absence of any federal statute conferring jurisdiction over this matter, it would appear that the federal government should butt out and Mr Medellin be executed as scheduled.

The death penalty however must also not be inflicted in an arbitrary manner. The Supreme Court said so in Furman v. Georgia. Does the fact that Texas can choose to execute Mr. Medina and then choose to honor international law sparing the next killer’s life make this an arbitrary imposition of death?

When should a state practice international diplomacy and respect the rule of international law? The answer appears to be one of self serving agendas and political pressure. State diplomacy wins the day here. There is no upside to any upcoming election from the Governor on down if Texas sides with the federal government. The overwhelming majority of Texans want Mr. Medellin executed as quickly as possible. If the state of Texas was concerned about its international reputation would it still be executing Mr. Medellian? What if Mexico was concurrently holding a Texas citizen under sentence of death? What if that citizen has been denied international treaty rights? Would Texas then be eager to execute Mr. Medellin? If Texas has no legal obligation to stop the execution, politics and public perception agendas are all that remain. At this time, Mexico appears to have nothing that Texas wants that would justify “mercy by agenda” Let us hope we have something that Mexico wants when the roles are reversed.

President Bush stated that we would return to the moon in this century. Is that prediction in jeopardy?

Gene Cernan has the distinction of being the last human being to walk on the moon in 1972. The first was Neil Armstrong, who proudly proclaimed, “One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind” as he slowly descended the Apollo 11 spacecraft for the lunar surface. It was a giant leap in technology, politics and the faith that we had in the ability to expand our vision of humanity. The world was riveted and harmonized like no other time in history.

Will any American ever walk on the moon again? Does it even matter? Some external force will be needed to take NASA and public support off of the path of least resistance. These things often require a sense of urgency. What unfortunate event or prediction will be the impetus for it?

The Apollo missions were abandoned because we simply had nowhere to go from there. We didn’t possess the technology, budget or public support to advance the program. We shifted our emphasis to less ambitious goals such as Skylab that were within our technological and financial reach leaving Star Trek visions behind. Why keep returning to the moon if we don’t have the technology to benefit mankind? You can only bring back so many moon rocks.

There are those who question our current ability to return to the moon. Just this week former astronaut and second man to walk on the moon Buzz Aldrin publicly questioned NASA’s Constellation program. This program is designing the replacement to the Space Shuttle that will eventually carry us back to the moon. Aldrin stated:

“We need to stick with the mission but rethink some of the ways we implement it. It doesn’t pay to stick with a bad idea.”

Why should we go back? Here are a few of many reasons:

1. We must step outside of our planet to find ways to extend our finite global resources, create new ones and combat global ecosystem failures. If we do not, at some point in the very distant future, our descendants may be facing extinction.

2. If we do not develop the advanced propulsion and other technologies to make it quickly and safely to the moon, we can forget about Mars and any other exploration of the Galaxy. The moon is the jumping off point for all future exploration.

3. The global economy will benefit. While the cost of getting to the moon is enormous, the potential economic payoff is off the scale. The opportunities for private investment in new manufacturing processes as well as humanitarian and for profit research staggers the mind. The moon has the potential to create global economic expansion like never seen in world history.

Should we forget about such lofty goals and focus on the troubles on this planet in the here and now? A return to the moon has detractors. Barack Obama has publicly stated that he would like to postpone the Constellation program and put the money into education and other more immediate need programs. There is some consensus that the Constellation program could be shut down if he is elected. In an interview on a Ohio television station he stated:

“I do think our program has been stuck for awhile. That the space shuttle program did not inspire the imaginations of the public. That much of the experimentation that has been done could have been conducted not necessarily with manned flights”

John McCain has always been a supporter of NASA. He however has stated that he wants to freeze spending except as it relates to defense and homeland security. This appears to be in contradiction to his campaign claims on this issue. His website states as follows:

“John McCain is a strong supporter of NASA and the space program. He is proud to have sponsored legislation authorizing funding consistent with the President’s vision for the space program, which includes a return of astronauts to the Moon in preparation for a manned mission to Mars”

It appears his new stance is that while he supports the space program, now is not the right time. My question is this?

If not now when?