Campaign to Suppress Bandits in Eastern China

The Campaign to Suppress Bandits in Eastern China was a counter-guerrilla / counterinsurgency campaign the communists fought against the nationalist guerrilla that was mostly consisted of bandits and nationalist regular troops left behind after the nationalist government withdrew from mainland China. The campaign resulted in communist victory.
Strategies.
The nationalists had faced a precarious dilemma in waging the campaign against its communist enemy because of complex situation they had faced, and consequently, made several grave miscalculations which contributed to their eventual failure.
Nationalist miscalculations.
Like other nationalist futile attempts to fight guerrilla and insurgency warfare against the communists after being driven off from mainland China, the very first grave strategic miscalculation made by the retreating nationalist government contributed at least equally if not greater than the enemy's political and military pressure to the nationalist defeat in this campaign. The very first strategic miscalculation made by the retreating nationalist government was identical to the earlier one the nationalist government had made immediately after World War II, when it had neither the sufficient troops nor enough transportation assets to be deployed into the Japanese-occupied regions of China, and unwilling to let these regions falling into communist hands, the nationalist government ordered the Japanese and their turncoat Chinese puppet government not to surrender to the communists and allowed them to keep their fighting capabilities to "maintain order" in the Japanese occupied regions by fighting off the communists. This earlier miscalculation resulted in further alienation and resentment to the nationalist government by the local population, which had already blamed the nationalists for losing the regions to the Japanese invaders during the war. Half a decade later when the nationalists were driven from mainland China, they had made the similar miscalculation once again in their desperation, this time by enlisting the help of local bandits to fight the communists, and ordering the nationalist troops left behind to join these bandits in the struggle against the communism. However, the bandits were deeply feared and hated by the local populace they plagued for so long, and nationalist troops left behind joining the bandits certainly did not help them win the support of the general population. In fact, it served the exact opposite, strengthening the popular support of their communist enemy.
The second grave strategic miscalculation made by the retreating nationalist government was also similar to the one the nationalist government had made immediately after World War II, when it attempted to simultaneously solve the warlord problem that had plagued China for so long with the problem of the exterminating communists together: those warlords allied with Chiang Kai-shek's nationalist government were only interested in keeping their own power and defected to the Japanese side when Japanese invaders offered to let them keep their power in exchange for their collaborations. After World War II, these forces of former Japanese puppet governments once again returned to the nationalist camp for the same reason they defected to the Japanese invaders. Obviously, it was difficult for Chiang to immediately get rid of these warlords for good as soon as they surrendered to Chiang and rejoined nationalists, because such move would alienate other factions within the nationalist ranks, and those former Japanese puppet government's warlords could still help the nationalists to by holding on to what was under their control and fighting off communists, and they and the communists would both be weakened. Similarly, the bandits the nationalist governments had failed to exterminate were obviously not good candidates for evacuation to Taiwan half a decade later, and using them to fight communists appeared to be the only logical alternative. If the communists were great weakened by the bandits, then it would the nationalists would have easier time in their counterattacks to retake China. If the bandits were defeated, then the nationalists would have easier job to eradicate them later after retaking China. However, just like those warlords, these bandits were only interested in keeping their own power also, and thus did not put any real efforts to fight the communists like some of the nationalists who were dedicated to their political cause. The eradication of bandits by the communist government only strengthened its popular support since previous governments (including the nationalist government itself) dating back from Qing Dynasty had failed to do so.
The third grave strategic miscalculation made by the retreating nationalist government was similar to the second one, but this one was about its own troops left behind. The nationalist government had faced a dilemma: the highly disciplined troops were in desperate need to defend Taiwan, the last nationalist island sanctuary. The less disciplined second rate and undisciplined third rate troops, both of which mostly consisted of warlords' troop were definitely not suited to be withdrawn to defend the last stand nationalists had made, and they were not given the top priority for evacuation. Instead, they were left behind to fight the communists behind the enemy line, but such move had alienated many of the troops left behind, and it was impossible to expect them to fight their communist enemy with the same kind of dedication like those nationalist agents who believed in their political cause. Compounding the problem, due to the need of bandits' knowledge of local area, they were often rewarded with higher ranks than the nationalist troops left behind. As a result, the former-nationalist regular troops turned guerrilla fighters lacked any willingness to work together with the bandits they once attempted to exterminate, especially when many of the bandits had killed their comrades-in-arms earlier in the battles of eradications / pacifications. Many loyal nationalists were enraged by the fact that they had to serve under the former-enemy they once fought. Similarly, the bandits lacked the similar willingness and attempted to expend those nationalist troops whenever they could in order to save their own skin.
The fourth grave strategic miscalculation made by the retreating nationalist government was financial / economical: due to the lack of money, those bandits turned guerrillas were mostly provided with arms, but not sufficient supplies and money. The bandits turned guerrilla had no problem of looting the local population to get what they need, as they had done for decades, which inevitably drove the general popular support further into the communist side. The little financial support provided by the nationalist government was simply not enough to support such guerrilla and insurgency warfare on such a large scale. Another unexpected but disastrous result of the insufficient financial support was that it had greatly eroded the support of the nationalist government within its own ranks. The wealthy landowners and businessmen were the strong supporters of nationalist government and as their properties were confiscated by the communists and redistributed to the poor, their hatred toward the communist government was enough to cause many of them to stay behind voluntarily to fight behind the enemy line. However, the landowners and businessmen were also longtime victims of bandits due to their wealth, and many of them had suffered even more than the general populace who had far less wealth. As these former landowners and businessmen turned guerrilla fighters were ordered to join their former bandits who once threatened, looted, kidnapped and even killed them and their relatives, it was obvious that such cooperation was mostly in name only and could not produce any actual benefits, and the alienation and discontent toward the nationalist government harbored by these once ardent nationalists would only grow greater.
Another problem for the nationalists was the strong disagreement among themselves over how to fight the war against their communist enemy. Military professionals preferred to fight a total war, incapacitate the enemy's ability to fight, but this inevitably conflicted with the interest of another faction of strong supporters of the nationalist government: the landowners and businessmen, who joined bandits to oppose such tactic. The reason was that landowners and businessmen supporting and joining the nationalist guerrilla firmly believed that the nationalists would be able to retake mainland China within several years and they would be able to regain their lost lands, businesses, and other properties that were confiscated and redistributed to the poor by the communists. As the nationalist military professionals in the guerrilla suggested and destroyed the production facilities and businesses as part of the total war, the landowners and businessmen would not be able to regain any valuable properties after the return of the nationalist government because those properties had been destroyed. The bandits agreed with the businessmen and landowners to oppose the idea of total war for a different reason: when the properties were destroyed and productivity dropped, they would not be able to loot enough supply to survive. As a result, despite the animosities between the bandits and landowners and businessmen, they were united together in the opposition to the military professional faction of the nationalists.
Communist strategies.
In contrast to the nationalists, communists had much simpler but effective strategy because the communists did not have the dilemma the nationalists had, and all they had to do was to eradicate bandits. The job of fighting a counterinsurgency and counter guerrilla war was made much easier for the communists by the grave strategic miscalculations nationalists they had made themselves, and communists exploited these to the maximum for their advantage. As with all other bandit eradication campaigns, the most important communist strategy was to mobilize the entire population to fight the bandits, and furthermore, additional strategies were devised specifically to fit the local situation to fight the bandits.
Prelude.
During its southward thrust against the retreating nationalists in May 1949, the communist 3rd Field Army was already preparing to suppress bandits in the following provinces of China: Shandong, Zhejiang, Fujian, Jiangsu, Anhui and Shanghai. Intelligence work on bandits was already in process and by July 1949, there were more than 113,000 bandits and another 10,000 pirates totaling over 700 bands. As the defeated nationalist regular forces scattered, most of them joined bandits to continue their struggle against communist, and the strength of bandits was more than doubled.
To eliminate this threat posed by bandits in eastern China, the communist 3rd Field Army deployed a total of nineteen divisions over the next four years to eradicate the bandits, and on August 9, 1949, the official order was given and the full-scale campaign had formally begun, with the concentration in Zhejiang and Anhui for initial phase in the autumn.
Order of battle.
Nationalists
Communists
1st Stage.
Large scale offensive against bandits begun in the late August, after small scale probing assaults, and by January 1950, over fifty-four thousand bandits were annihilated, along with their major bases in Taihu, and the border region of Fujian, Zhejiang and Jiangxi. The large bands of bandits in Jiangsu, northern Anhui and Zhejiang were destroyed. From 1950 onward, the communists targeted Fujian and Zhejiang as the major concentration to eliminate the remaining bandits that survived the major offensives. In Fujian, a total of eight regiments of regular communist forces were deployed, succeeding in destroy the major bandit force under the nationalist command titled National Self-Salvation Army North Fujian Command. On the other fronts, communist forces succeeded in annihilating bandits forces of the 3rd Column of the Defense Ministry and the 3rd Column of the Jiangsu-Anhui Military Region that were active in the regions of Zhejiang, southern Jiangsu and northern Anhui.
After the Korean War broke out in June 1950, bandits stepped up their offensives, believing that the communists would be soon defeated by the Americans and the nationalists would return soon under the help of their western allies. The communists adjusted their strategies accordingly by increasing their forces to a total of seven regular divisions, four local garrison divisions, and additional militia units. In Fujian, the communist regular army strength was increased to 50% to twelve regiments from the original eight. In Zhejiang, two divisions of the communist 22nd Army and a division of the communist 23rd Army were deployed in Tiantai (天台) region, Chuanshan (穿山) and Xiangshan (象山) peninsulas, where bandit activities were heavy. The communist strategy was to first eradicate bandits in the heartlands, wealth regions, and regions next to the transportation / communication lines, and then those remote and poverty-stricken regions. In November 1950, Mao Zedong ordered that another landing on Kinmen (Quemoy) to be postponed, until bandits in Fujian are completely eradicated. The communist force in the province soon swelled to five divisions and after several months of eradication attempts, over thirty bands of bandits were completely annihilated, including 8th Column of the Fujian People's Anticommunism Army and the Popular Self-defense Army of Zhejiang – Fujian – Jiangxi Border Region. By June 1951, all major organized bandit guerrillas were completely destroyed when communists succeeded in annihilating over 114,500 bandits.
2nd Stage.
From June 1951 onward, the communist strategy shifted to eradication of the surviving bandits who managed to escape earlier eradication efforts. With nearly all of the former nationalist forces wiped out in the 1st stage of the campaign, the survivors were mostly bandits with nationalist military advisors and agents, which were not as effective as before, when there were more regular army soldiers in the nationalist guerrillas. The eradication tasks were consequently transferred to the local communist garrison and police force, with the help of local militias, while the communist regular force was withdrawn. Within a year, most of the surviving bandits on the mainland were annihilated.
However, the communists faced greater challenges in their struggle against pirates backed by the nationalist government in Taiwan, where communists were forced to deploy regular marines and navy, which was still in their infancy and thus inadequate for naval battles. Instead of challenging the superior nationalist navy that backed the pirates, the communists adopted an alternative strategy by ambushing pirates who landed on the mainland, where the communist force was strong. The tactic proved to be effective and in the month of January 1951 alone, over fifteen hundred pirates in over a hundred twenty bands were annihilated. An additional several hundred pirates were also annihilated in 1951 when the communist navy engaged in fifty-six naval battles against pirates at sea, succeeding in sinking and capturing fifty-two boats and ships from the pirates. Beginning in 1951, communists also begun their island hopping campaign to capture coastal islands and eradicate pirates stationed on these islands. When these islands fell into communist hands, the surviving pirates were forced to withdraw and the communist success in these naval engagements was mainly because its weak naval forces operated under the cover of shore artillery batteries and air cover.
The attempt to secure these coast islands took much longer than the fighting on lands, and it was not until the end of 1953 when the communist victory was finally achieved, which concluded the campaign itself. The communists succeeded in annihilating over 246,000 bandits (including over 7,800 pirates), capturing over 400 artillery pieces, over 115,000 small arms and dozens of boats.
Outcome.
Although sharing the common anticommunist goal, the nationalist guerrilla and insurgency warfare was largely handicapped by the enlistment of bandits, many of whom had fought and killed nationalist troops earlier in the eradication / pacification campaign, and also looted, kidnapped and even killed landlords and business owners, an important faction that supported the nationalist government, but now must united against the common enemy, which is half-hearted at the best. Compounding the problem further with additional differences within the ranks of the nationalist guerrillas themselves, the futile nationalist guerrilla and insurgency warfare against its communist enemy was destined to fail.


Red Crag

Red Crag or Red Rock () was a 1961 novel based partly on fact by Chinese authors Luo Guangbin and Yang Yiyan, who were former inmates in a Kuomintang prison in Sichuan. It was set in Chongqing during the Chinese Civil War in 1949, and featured underground communist agents under the command of Zhou Enlai fighting an espionage battle against the Kuomintang.
The novel contained a highly negative portrayal for the Sino-American Cooperative Organization, as responsible for the running prisons jailing communists and other political dissidents, although in reality they were actually run by the KMT secret police service BIS, and had no American involvement. The main protagonist Jiang Xueqin, or "Sister Jiang" (), is based on the Communist revolutionary Jiang Zhuyun (1920–1949).
Xujun Eberlein wrote in "The Atlantic" that "The novel played a critical role in the heroism culture of the Mao era."
The book includes a poem that was attributed to, but was not written by, the revolutionary "martyr" Chen Ran (陈然, 1923－1949).
Adaptations.
The 1964 Chinese-language western-style opera titled "Sister Jiang" is based on the novel. The opera was composed by Yang Ming and Jiang Chunyang, musicians of the art bureau of the Chinese Air Force.
In 2002, at the invitation of the German World Art Festival, director Zhang Yuan presented a Peking opera (also titled "Sister Jiang"), with Zhang Huoding in the title role, at the Cologne Grand Theater - the first major presentation of a revolutionary opera in Europe. Zhang Yuan made a film version of the production in 2003.
In 2004, a Peking opera titled "Hua Ziliang" was produced by Tianjin Chinese Opera Theater for DVD in 2004 with Wang Pin in the title role. Hua Ziliang is a character from the novel.
A 2010 CCTV-1 TV series also titled "Sister Jiang" is also based on this novel.


Periklis Korovesis

Periklis Korovesis (; 20 July 1941 – 11 April 2020), also published as Pericles Korovessis, was a Greek author and journalist and a member of the Hellenic Parliament.
Biography.
Korovesis was born in Argostoli, Kefalonia, in 1941. He studied theatre with Dimitris Rontiris and Semiotics with Roland Barthes. He also attended some classes of Pierre Vidal-Naquet in Paris. From an early age, Korovesis participated actively in the democratic movement. During the military junta (1967–1974) he was arrested, imprisoned and exiled. His first book, "The Method: A Personal Account of the Tortures in Greece" ("Anthropofylakes" in Greek), is a personal account of the tortures that he experienced at the police headquarters in Bouboulinas Street at the time of the Colonels' military junta. Korovesis' story was a significant testimony for Amnesty International and the Council of Europe in order to file charges against the regime of the colonels for the appalling treatment of political prisoners.
Parliamentary and social activities.
Korovesis was an elected Member of Parliament with the left-wing party Coalition of the Radical Left (SY.RIZ.A) in the 2007 Greek legislative election for the Athens A constituency. He failed to be re-elected MP in 2009 elections. He was an advocate of human rights, immigrants, environmental issues and Greek diaspora.
Books.
Korovesis' first book titled "Anthropofylakes" has been translated into French (Seuil, 1969), English (Allison & Busby, 1970, and Panther, 1970), Swedish (Rubén et Sjӧrgen, 1970), Finnish (Weilin+Gӧӧs, 1970), Norwegian (Gyldendal, 1973), Turkish (Yӧntem, 1972, & Alan Yayincilik, 1989), German (Zweitausendeins,1981 and Raith,1976), Portuguese (Publicaciōes Europa-America,1970). He also wrote poetry and children's stories.
Korovesis wrote articles for "Eleftherotypia", "Epochi" and "Efimerida ton Syntakton" newspapers and for the magazine "Galera". His personal blog was titled "Left Recycling".
Death.
Korovesis died, aged 78, in an Athens hospital on 11 April 2020.


Schenck v. United States

Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court concerning enforcement of the Espionage Act of 1917 during World War I. A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that defendants who distributed flyers to draft-age men urging resistance to induction could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not alter the well-established law in cases where the attempt was made through expressions that would be protected in other circumstances. In this opinion, Holmes said that expressions which in the circumstances were intended to result in a crime, and posed a "clear and present danger" of succeeding, could be punished.
The Court continued to follow this reasoning to uphold a series of convictions arising out of prosecutions during wartime, but Holmes began to dissent in the case of "Abrams v. United States", insisting that the Court had departed from the standard he had crafted for them, and had begun to allow punishment for ideas. However, the Court has set another line of precedents to govern cases in which the constitutionality of a statute is challenged on its face. In 1969, Schenck was partially overturned by "Brandenburg v. Ohio", which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).
Background.
"Schenck" was the first in a line of Supreme Court cases defining the modern understanding of the First Amendment. Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote the often-cited opinion in the case, because of events that were not publicly known at the time. The United States' entry into the First World War had caused deep divisions in society, and was vigorously opposed, especially by those on the radical left and by those who had ties to Germany. The Wilson administration launched a broad campaign of criminal enforcement that resulted in thousands of prosecutions. Many of these were for trivial acts of dissent. In the first case arising from this campaign to come before the Court, "Baltzer v. United States", 248 U.S. 593 (1918), the defendants had signed a petition criticizing their governor's administration of the draft, threatening him with defeat at the polls. They were charged with obstructing the recruitment and enlistment service, and convicted. When a majority of the Court voted during their conference to affirm the conviction, Holmes quickly drafted and circulated a strongly worded dissenting opinion:Real obstructions of the law, giving real aid and comfort to the enemy, I should have been glad to see punished more summarily and severely than they sometimes were. But I think that our intention to put out all our powers in aid of success in war should not hurry us into intolerance of opinions and speech that could not be imagined to do harm, although opposed to our own. It is better for those who have unquestioned and almost unlimited power in their hands to err on the side of freedom.Rather than proceed in the face of Holmes's biting dissent, Chief Justice Edward Douglass White set the case aside and word of the situation evidently reached the Administration, because the prosecution was abandoned. White then asked Holmes to write the opinion for a unanimous Court in the next case, one in which they could agree, "Schenck v. United States". Holmes wrote that opinion, and wrote again for a unanimous court upholding convictions in two more cases that spring, "Frohwerk v. United States" and "Debs v. United States", establishing what remains the standard for deciding the constitutionality of criminal convictions based on expressive behavior. Holmes disliked legislative-style formulas, and did not repeat the language of "clear and present danger" in any subsequent opinion, however. The Schenck opinion alone accordingly is often cited as the source of this legal standard, and some scholars have suggested that Holmes changed his mind and offered a different view in his equally famous dissent in "Abrams v. United States". The events leading to the assignment of the "Schenck" opinion to Holmes were discovered when Holmes's biographer Sheldon Novick unearthed the unpublished Baltzer opinion among Holmes's papers at Harvard Law School.
The facts of the "Schenck" case were as follows. Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer were members of the Executive Committee of the Socialist Party in Philadelphia, of which Schenck was General Secretary. The executive committee authorized, and Schenck oversaw, printing and mailing more than 15,000 fliers to men slated for conscription during World War I. The fliers urged men not to submit to the draft, saying "Do not submit to intimidation", "Assert your rights", "If you do not assert and support your rights, you are helping to deny or disparage rights which it is the solemn duty of all citizens and residents of the United States to retain," and urged men not to comply with the draft on the grounds that military conscription constituted involuntary servitude, which is prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment.
After jury trials Schenck and Baer were convicted of violating Section 3 of the Espionage Act of 1917. Both defendants appealed to the United States Supreme Court, arguing that their conviction, and the statute which purported to authorize it, were contrary to the First Amendment. They relied heavily on the text of the First Amendment, and their claim that the Espionage Act of 1917 had what today one would call a "chilling effect" on free discussion of the war effort.
The Court's decision.
The Court, in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., held that Schenck's criminal conviction was constitutional. The statute only applied to successful obstructions of the draft, but common-law precedents allowed prosecution for attempts that were dangerously close to success. Attempts made by speech or writing could be punished like other attempted crimes; the First Amendment did not protect speech encouraging men to resist induction, because, "when a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right." In other words, the court held, the circumstances of wartime allow greater restrictions on free speech than would be allowed during peacetime, if only because new and greater dangers are present.
The opinion's most famous and most often quoted passage was this: The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. ... The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. The phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has since become a popular metaphor for dangers or limitations of free speech.
Subsequent jurisprudence.
In subsequent cases, when it appeared to him that the Court was departing from the precedents established in "Schenck" and companion cases, Holmes dissented, reiterating his view that expressions of honest opinion were entitled to near absolute protection, but that expressions made with the specific intent to cause a criminal harm, or that threatened a clear and present danger of such harm, could be punished. In "Abrams v. United States", he elaborated on the common-law privileges for freedom of speech and of the press, and stated his conviction that freedom of opinion was central to the constitutional scheme because competition in the "marketplace" of ideas was the best test of their truth. In "Whitney v. California" (1927), concerning a conviction for seditious speech forbidden by California law, Holmes joined a concurring opinion written by Justice Louis D. Brandeis once again explaining the clear-and-present-danger standard for criminal attempts in these terms, reiterating the argument that political speech was protected because of the value of democratic deliberation. The Supreme Court continued to affirm convictions for seditious speech in a series of prosecutions of leftists, however, culminating in "Dennis v. United States", 341 U.S. 494 (1951) in which a bitterly divided Court upheld the sedition convictions for the leaders of the Communist Party. Judge Learned Hand in the court below and Chief Justice Vinson for the plurality in the Supreme Court cited "Schenck", and the language of "clear and present danger" accordingly fell into disfavor among the advocates of free speech and freedom of the press.
A unanimous Court in a brief "per curiam" opinion in "Brandenburg v. Ohio" (1969), abandoned the disfavored language while seemingly applying the reasoning of "Schenck" to reverse the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan member prosecuted for giving an inflammatory speech. The Court said that speech could be prosecuted only when it posed a danger of "imminent lawless action," a formulation which is sometimes said to reflect Holmes reasoning as more fully explicated in his "Abrams" dissent, rather than the common law of attempts explained in "Schenck." "Brandenburg" is also taken to have repudiated the clear-and-present-danger standard as construed in "Dennis", and to have adopted something more like the explication given by Holmes and Brandeis in subsequent opinions. Partly because the standard for protecting expressive behavior under the First Amendment was stated differently in his different opinions, "revisionist" scholars have argued that Holmes changed his mind in the summer of 1919, and that after writing three opinions for a unanimous court, he stated a different and more liberal view in his "Abrams" dissent a few weeks later. Bolstered by this argument, a number of advocates for freedom of expression have insisted that the Supreme Court has rejected "Schenck" and the majority opinion in "Abrams," and in practice has followed the reasoning of Holmes' "Abrams" dissent and Brandeis' and Holmes' concurring opinion in "Whitney". The Court has repeatedly reaffirmed "Schenck", however, holding that the destruction of a draft card could be prosecuted as a violation of Selective Service regulations even though carried out as a protest ("United States v. O'Brien"), but that burning an American flag at a protest could not be prosecuted because it posed no danger of causing a harm that the legislature had power to forbid ("Texas v. Johnson").
In 2010, the Supreme Court rejected the argument of Holmes's "Abrams" dissent. The facts in "Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project" were similar to those in "Abrams": persons who planned to advocate the causes of Sri Lankan and Kurdish organizations, designated terrorist groups, had a reasonable fear of prosecution under the USA PATRIOT Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2339B, for providing material support for terrorist organizations. The Supreme Court held that such prosecutions were not barred by the First Amendment, expressly rejecting the argument that a "specific intent" to assist terrorist acts was required, rejecting also the claim of the dissenting justices that the case was governed by the concurrence in "Whitney," or by the standard stated in "Brandenburg". Finally, in "Citizens United v. FEC", the majority of the Court rejected the argument made by the dissenters that the First Amendment was premised on the value of democratic deliberation in the "marketplace of ideas." Instead, they held that First Amendment rights are individual, not based on communitarian considerations.


Diocese of Eastern Zambia

The Diocese of Eastern Zambia is one of five Anglican dioceses in Zambia within the Church of the Province of Central Africa: the current bishop is William Mchombo.


Garden House riot

The Garden House riot was a civil disturbance at the Garden House Hotel in Cambridge on Friday 13 February 1970. It was the only serious disturbance at the University of Cambridge in the period around the widespread 1968 student protests. The event has been described as a marking a watershed in student protest in the UK.
Background.
The Greek Tourist Board organised a "Greek Week" in Cambridge in 1970, with support from the Greek government and local travel agents, including events at the Royal Cambridge Hotel and its sister hotel, the Garden House. Protesters against the Greek military junta, the 'Colonels' regime', gathered outside the hotels for several days, culminating with a crowd of several hundred protesters – mostly Cambridge University students organised by socialist groups – demonstrating against a Greek dinner for 120 guests being held at River Suite at the Garden House Hotel from 7:30 pm on 13 February.
Events.
The protesters picketed the venue – in a narrow cul-de-sac off Mill Lane, beside the River Cam – to discourage diners from entering. The noisy crowd attempted to disrupt speeches inside, with a loudspeaker in a Fellow's room in neighbouring Peterhouse playing music by dissident Greek composer Mikis Theodorakis. Protesters invaded the hotel's garden, still icy from recent snow, banging on the windows of the venue and climbing onto the hotel roof. An attempt to break up the crowd using a fire hose played from a first floor window at the hotel failed, and violence broke out: the hotel was invaded and damaged (estimated at £2,000), one policeman was seriously injured, others received minor injuries, and a University pro-proctor, Dr Charles Burford Goodhart was struck by a half-brick and taken to hospital. Around 80 policemen accompanied by police dogs restored order by about 11 pm.
Six students were arrested on 13 February, and the University proctors provided the police with the names of approximately 60 people they had spotted in the crowd. Fifteen students were tried on a variety of charges at the Hertford Assizes in June and July 1970, including riotous assembly, unlawful assembly, assaulting a police constable, and possessing offensive weapons. Charges against another four people – including economist Bob Rowthorn, the only senior member of the university to be charged – had been dismissed at a committal hearing in May.
Aftermath.
After a trial of seven days, the jury took nearly four hours to reach its decision. Seven of the defendants were acquitted, but eight students were convicted, including the six arrested in February and two others seen pushing in the crowd. All were aged between 19 and 25. Judge Melford Stevenson controversially gave harsh sentences to those involved. Six of the convicted students were sentenced to between 9 months and 18 months in prison, and two aged under 21 were sentenced to periods in borstal. One student from Brazil and a second from South Africa were also recommended for deportation. The sentences were criticised as heavy-handed, as was the judge's comment that he would have passed heavier sentences but for the "evil influence of some senior members of the university". The Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University, Owen Chadwick, contradicted press statements that students were incited to violence by more senior members of the university.
All eight made appeals to the Court of Appeal against their sentences, and three against their convictions. The appeals were heard by Lord Justice Eric Sachs, Mr Justice Maurice Lyell and Ralph Cusack on 18 August. Only one appeal – the South African student, found with a mole fuse (a small smoke bomb for smoking out moles) in his pocket, and convicted for possessing an offensive weapon – was allowed, but the recommendation for deportation of the Brazilian student was also cancelled. The case remains a precedent for the legal principles that holding strong political views is no excuse for violent acts, that prosecuting only a few out of a number of potential defendants is permitted, that a defendant's individual acts should not be considered in isolation but must take their share of blame from the broader context of the disorder, and that encouraging or promoting disorder by words or actions is as culpable as participating in it. The case also continues to be cited in deportation cases, for the principle that a decision to recommend deportation following a conviction must be justified by the potential detriment to the UK if the person is allowed to stay. The president of the National Union of Students, Jack Straw (who was Home Secretary from 1997 to 2001), accused the court of discriminating against students.
Several of the defendants returned to their degrees after serving their sentences; others had already completed their studies. The incident led to a reform of the powers of the Cambridge University proctors.
The Garden House Hotel was destroyed by a fire on 23 April 1972 in which two guests died. It was rebuilt the following year. Later the hotel became the 'DoubleTree by Hilton, Cambridge' and at the start of 2020, the 'Cambridge Hotel'.


Wing Luke

Wing Chong Luke (February 18, 1925 – May 16, 1965; ) was a Chinese-American politician who served as Assistant Attorney General of the U.S. state of Washington in the Civil Rights Division from 1957 to 1962, and a member of the Seattle City Council from 1962 until his death in 1965. He was the first Asian American to hold elected office in the state.
Early life.
Luke was born on February 18, 1925, in a small town near Canton. His grandfather had run a laundry in Seattle, but exclusion laws forced Luke's father to return to China. When Luke was five, his family moved to the United States, but he did not settle in Seattle until 1931, at the age of six. Upon its arrival in Seattle, the family saved to open a modest laundry and grocery store in the University District. Luke was the oldest of six children.
While in school, Luke was often teased for his Chinese origins. However, he eventually became the Roosevelt High School student body president. In 1944, his grades and civic activities earned him one of nine slots, as a high school consultant for the White House Conference on juvenile problems.
Education and career.
Only halfway through his senior year of high school, Luke was inducted into the U.S. Army. Initially in the Army Specialized Training Program, he then joined the infantry and field artillery and was acting first sergeant and regimental S-1 sergeant in the 40th division Field Artillery. He served in Guam, Korea, New Guinea, New Britain and the Philippines, where he received the Bronze Star Medal and six combat stars.
Following his service, Luke entered the University of Washington. As in high school, Luke was a prominent leader. He was President of his sophomore class, the U.W. YMCA, the Baptist-Disciples' Student Center, the U.W. Red Cross, U.W. Young Democrats, and the committee chairman of A.S.U.W. Publications. He graduated from the university with a B.A. in political science and public administration. He did graduate work in the same fields at the American University in Washington, D.C. He then attended the UW School of Law to earn an LL.B.
Initially in private practice, he soon was appointed the Assistant Attorney General of the State of Washington, in the Civil Rights Division and served in that capacity from 1957 to 1962. In December, 1961 Luke took a leave of absence from his duties to file for position number 5 on the Seattle City Council. Running on the slogan "You are not electing a platform, but a Councilman," Luke maintained a pragmatic position on the issues. Despite having to defend against criticism of "fence sitting," accusations of communism, and racial slurs, Luke won the council seat with a landslide of 30,000 votes and was sworn in on March 13, 1962. He became the first Asian American to hold elected office in the Pacific Northwest as well as the first person of color to hold a Seattle City Council seat.
Death and legacy.
On May 16, 1965, Luke was killed in a plane crash with two others on Merchant Peak in Snohomish County, while returning from a fishing trip in Okanogan County. The wreckage was not found in the Cascade Mountains for more than three years.
Luke is the namesake of multiple institutions. Friends and other supporters of Luke who raised money to search for him started the Wing Luke Memorial Foundation. The money went to the founding of the Wing Luke Museum of the Asian Pacific American Experience in 1966 to fulfill his vision of a place to present the histories and cultures of Asian immigrants and present-day issues of Asian Americans. The museum remains located in Seattle Chinatown-International District. The Seattle school South Van Asselt School was renamed the Wing Luke Elementary School in 1969. In 2015, the Washington State Attorney General's office created the Wing Luke Civil Rights Unit to investigate issues related to discrimination and civil rights.
Politician Gary Locke has named Luke as an inspiration.
Views.
Luke saw many of his contemporaries forced to live in racialized pockets of Seattle like Beacon Hill (largely Asian Americans) and the Central District (largely African Americans), and felt strongly that the ability to decide where one lived should be a basic right of all citizens. Having firsthand awareness of the effects of racial discrimination, Luke was instrumental in Seattle's passing of an Open Housing Ordinance in 1963 with punitive provisions against racial discrimination in the selling or renting of real estate. He also fought for civil rights, Indian fishing rights, urban renewal and historic preservation. Luke was particularly concerned with the preservation of Seattle's Central Waterfront, Pioneer Square, and Pike Place Market. He was affiliated with several community organizations, including the Urban League, Chinese Community Service Organization, Japanese American Citizens League, and the Jackson Street Community Council.


Percy Sugden

Percy Sugden is a fictional character from the British ITV soap opera, "Coronation Street", played by Bill Waddington. He appeared between 1983 and 1997.
Creation.
The character was introduced to "Coronation Street" as a potential caretaker of the Community Centre. Percy's niece, Elaine Prior, stayed with him until she married Bill Webster (Peter Armitage). Percy was also a school crossing patrol 'lollipop' man, and Phyllis Pearce (Jill Summers) came to respect him greatly after he was injured trying to protect her. In 1997 Bill Waddington decided to leave the show after 14 years. His last appearance was in October 1997.
Storylines.
Percy Sugden arrived on the Street in 1983 as the new caretaker at the Community Centre. Old soldier Percy had been a cook in the Army serving with the Eighth Army in North Africa whose proudest boast was: "When you've made gravy under shell fire, you can do anything!". He had little family, but was close to his niece, Elaine Prior (Judy Gridley), who married Bill Webster (Peter Armitage) in 1985.
In 1983, Percy suggested to Mavis Riley (Thelma Barlow) that his pet budgie, Randy, should mate with her pet budgie, Harriet. Mavis was not happy with the idea.
In 1987, Percy formed the Percy Sugden Formation Dancers, containing local notables such as Hilda Ogden (Jean Alexander) and Phyllis Pearce (Jill Summers). He encouraged them to an enter a local dance contest - however, fed up with his bossiness, the dancers finally ousted Percy and elected a new chairman. Percy reacted by cancelling the group's entry in the dance contest, and informing them that new entries were no longer being accepted. Percy decided to be a good neighbour, making regular visits to Alf Roberts (Bryan Mosley), who was recovering from a heart attack; Alf was horrified when insensitive Percy told him stories of other heart attack victims who had not been so lucky to survive.
Upon reaching retirement age in 1988, Percy was forced to leave his flat at the Community Centre and move out of the Street. Miserable at being away from the neighbourhood, he slumped into lethargy until Emily Bishop (Eileen Derbyshire) took pity on him and moved him in as her lodger at No 3. Percy was delighted, but Mavis Riley, an old friend of Emily's, initially reacted with some jealousy. When Mavis married Derek Wilton (Peter Baldwin) later that year, Percy was thrilled to act as best man (although nobody had actually asked him) and took it upon himself to see that Derek made it to the wedding this time, having heard of their failed wedding in 1978.
Like Albert Tatlock (Jack Howarth) and Ena Sharples (Violet Carson) before him, Percy was disappointed by many of the "doings" of the younger generation. When Brian Tilsley (Christopher Quinten) was stabbed and killed outside a nightclub in 1989, Percy blamed it on "Acid Drops" (acid house), stating that in his day, "people attending George Formby concerts hadn't come dashing out stabbing folk!".
Percy had unwanted female attention, thanks mainly to Phyllis Pearce and Maud Grimes (Elizabeth Bradley). Phyllis pursued him for most of the 1980s and into the 1990s, and sought to make him jealous by being seen around with other local pensioners, including Sam Tindall (Tom Mennard) and Arnold Swift (Harry Littlewood); Percy remained unmoved.
In 1997, Percy's happy life in the Street was shattered when the Battersby family moved in next-door. Percy couldn't stand his boisterous new neighbours, so he decided to move into a retirement complex at Mayfield Court. By 1998, Percy was still living in Mayfield Court with Phyllis Pearce and they had recently been joined by Maud Grimes.
Percy was never seen or mentioned again. Actor Bill Waddington died in 2000 and it is to be assumed that the character of Percy died with him.
Reception.
Along with Stafford Hildred, actor Bill Waddington wrote a book about his character called "The importance of being Percy", which was released in 1992.


Unclaimed

Unclaimed is a 2013 Canadian documentary film about a man who claims to be former Special Forces Green Beret Master Sgt. John Hartley Robertson, who was declared dead after being shot down over Laos on a classified mission on 20 May 1968. The documentary is written, directed, and produced by Michael Jorgensen. It follows Tom Faunce, a veteran of the Vietnam War, in tracking down the man who claimed to be Robertson. Faunce was skeptical of Robertson's identity but eventually became convinced. He convinced Jorgensen to make a documentary about Robertson's story as a way to unite the man with his American family.
Leading up to the film's release, the validity of Robertson's identity was challenged by groups of Vietnam War veterans and groups that advocate the Vietnam War POW/MIA issue. Jean Robertson-Holley, Robertson's surviving sister, was convinced the man was her brother but initially declined DNA testing as unnecessary. Eventually she and her daughter (Robertson's niece) Gail Metcalf expressed openness to going through with testing. The documentary was screened at the Hot Docs Canadian International Documentary Festival on , 2013. A day later, "The Independent" reported the contents of a memo from a 2009 report by the Defense Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office that the man who claimed to be Robertson was actually Dang Tan Ngoc, "a 76-year-old Vietnamese citizen of French origin who has a history of pretending to be US army veterans".
Synopsis.
Vietnam veteran Tom Faunce works as a missionary in Vietnam, where he hears of an elderly man claiming to be Robertson. Faunce's meeting with the man spurs him to try to repatriate him, against the wishes of the US government.
The man claiming to be Robertson states in the film that he was kept in a bamboo cage in the jungle by the North Vietnamese and tortured for a year. Then, confused and badly injured, he was released and married a Vietnamese woman who had helped to care for him, assuming the name of her dead husband. Aged 76 , he lives in a remote village in south central Vietnam and is unable to remember his birthday or his American children's names, and is now only able to speak Vietnamese. Scenes include a meeting with a veteran who was trained by Robertson back in 1960 and who recognized him on sight.
Production.
"Unclaimed" is written, directed, and produced by Michael Jorgensen. A veteran of the Vietnam War, Tom Faunce, had been on a humanitarian mission in southeast Asia in 2008 when he learned about John Hartley Robertson, a fellow soldier who was reported killed in action in the war, still alive in Vietnam. Faunce was skeptical when meeting Robertson but was eventually convinced of his identity. Faunce then contacted Jorgensen in 2012 to appeal to him to make a documentary as a way to help Robertson reunite with his family. Jorgensen was also skeptical but became convinced to make the documentary about Robertson. The filmmaker said he experienced difficulty with the U.S. military in making the documentary, such as being unable to contact Robertson's family. Jorgensen said a government source told him, "It's not that the Vietnamese won't let him (Robertson) go; it's that our government doesn't want him."
Validity of identity.
Lead-up to film premiere.
With the publicity of "Unclaimed", the identity of the man who claimed to be Robertson was challenged. In the documentary, the "Toronto Star" reported the case made, "There is physical proof of Robertson's birthplace, collected in dramatic fashion onscreen; a tearful meeting in Vietnam with a soldier who was trained by Robertson in 1960 and said he knew him on sight; and a heart-wrenching reunion with his only surviving sister — 80-year-old Jean Robertson-Holly [sic]." Leading up to the film's premiere, Jorgensen said Robertson's American wife and two children had volunteered to participate in DNA testing but withdrew their intent. The filmmaker said, "Somebody suggested to me maybe that's (because) the daughters don't want to know if it's him. It's kind of like, that was an ugly war. It was a long time ago. We just want it to go away... I don't know. What would compel you not to want to know if this person is your biological father?"
After the reunion, the "Toronto Star" said of the man who claimed to be Robertson, "He is back in Vietnam and has no desire to leave, having fulfilled his one wish: to see his American family once more before he dies." The sister, Robertson-Holley, said it was "not necessary" to conduct DNA testing since she confidently identifies the man as her brother. Some groups of Vietnam War veterans and groups that advocate the Vietnam War POW/MIA issue questioned Robertson's identity. The "Toronto Star" reported, "The film is already generating heated debate online, along with allegations the man claiming to be Robertson is a fraud." Robertson-Holley's daughter (Robertson's niece) Gail Metcalf said in response, "I don't blame people. I think some of the vets who say that are truly trying to protect us. They don’t want us to be scammed and their hearts are in the right place." Robertson-Holley subsequently alleviated her adamant stance on DNA testing. Metcalf spoke for her mother, "We plan to do it when we can. We haven't been able to do it yet. In the beginning, mom's position was we don't care if people doubt. We're not spotlight kind of people." Expensive medical bills related to her parents' critical injuries was cited as a reason for delaying DNA testing. The "Toronto Star" said in April 2013 pressure would likely increase when the documentary screens at the GI Film Festival in May 2013. Metcalf said, "Of course we're more than willing. The bottom line is even if the DNA test came back negative, he’s still proven to be an American. My mother will never believe he is not her brother."
Post-release.
On , 2013, a day after the film's premiere, "The Independent" reported that a memo based on a 2009 report from the Defense Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office (DPMO) said that the man who claimed to be Robertson was actually Dang Tan Ngoc, "a 76-year-old Vietnamese citizen of French origin who has a history of pretending to be US army veterans". The memo said Ngoc came to the attention of the U.S. military in 2006 due to his claim of being Robertson. Ngoc withdrew his claim at the time but he made the claim once again in 2008. He was taken to the U.S. embassy in Cambodia to be fingerprinted, and his fingerprints did not match Robertson's on record. "The Independent" said, "Reports suggest Ngoc could have been impersonating Sgt Robertson since around 1982, with some Vietnam War veterans saying he could have possibly conned veteran groups out of thousands of pounds over the last 30 years." According to the newspaper, in 1991, Paramilitary Operations Officer Billy Waugh led an investigative team to Ngoc and was able to retrieve his DNA. The "Toronto Star" reported members of the surviving family said they never submitted DNA samples. A DPMO statement, quoted by "Soldier of Fortune" magazine, indicates "...mitochondrial DNA sequences from the hair samples obtained were compared to family reference samples taken from Robertson’s brother and one of his sisters."
In response to the controversy, the GI Film Festival, which exhibited "Unclaimed" after the Toronto premier, posted a disclaimer on its site.
Director's view.
When Jorgensen was asked by the "Toronto Star" if he believed the man's identity, he replied, "It does not matter what I think. There's no doubt in the family." Jorgensen did confirm to "Maclean's" magazine, however, he believes "the circumstantial evidence strongly indicates this man is John Hartley Robertson."
Results of Robertson Family's Independent DNA test.
In the wake of the controversy, the Robertson family raised funds in late 2013 to conduct their own independent DNA test. With results in hand, the family, on their funding site, GoFundMe admitted the DNA of the man claiming to be Robertson did not match the DNA of Robertson's nephew.
The filmmaker Michael Jorgensen in an interview with "Stars and Stripes" suggested people should not focus on the failed DNA test but an isotope test conducted on Ngoc's last remaining tooth. Jorgensen believes isotope test suggests Ngoc is likely an American. "Stars and Stripes" noted the isotope results match other areas of the world and failed to eliminate the possibility Ngoc grew up in another non-American location that matches the isotope levels measured in the tooth. In comments to the "Stars and Stripes" article a responder suggested the test could say nothing definitive as the filmmaker only tested one tooth. The responder suggested one needs to test two teeth that form at different times. If both teeth share similar isotope levels then one could say the person definitively grew up in a given geographic area. One cannot, by testing only one tooth, eliminate the possibility the man in the movie was moved around as a child and the isotope levels represent an "average", which just happen to correspond to some place in the U.S., an area with very diverse geography where one is likely to find a match within error bars.
Release.
Michael Jorgensen sought for "Unclaimed" to screen in his home country of Canada first. The documentary was screened for the first time at an invitation-only patrons' screening at the Metro Cinema at the Garneau in early January 2013. It then premiered at the Hot Docs Canadian International Documentary Festival on , 2013. The documentary had its first American screening at the GI Film Festival in Washington, D.C. on , 2013.
James Adams, reviewing for "The Globe and Mail", gave the documentary three out of four stars and described it, "Part mystery, part forensic investigation, part journey to troubled pasts, part redemption song, "Unclaimed" is all heart." Linda Barnard, who covered "Unclaimed" in the "Toronto Star", also reviewed the documentary, "Canadian director Michael Jorgensen’s emotional story... seems unbelievable. To the filmmaker's credit, Jorgensen lets the audience decide whether or not to believe it as he follows Vietnam vet Tom Faunce’s quest to make good on a pledge to leave no man behind."
Re-release.
"Unclaimed" was re-released in May 2014, playing in New York City and Los Angeles. Martin Tsai of the "LA Times" notes "Michael Jorgensen...doesn't do serious investigative work to check [Ngoc's] claim that he's John Hartley Robertson". "The Hollywood Reporter" assess the film's commercial potential as "slim for a doc that...seemingly has little interest in uncovering the truth." "The Village Voice" calls "Unclaimed" "a nakedly manipulative film".


Saboteur (film)

Saboteur is a 1942 American spy thriller film directed by Alfred Hitchcock with a screenplay written by Peter Viertel, Joan Harrison and Dorothy Parker. The film stars Robert Cummings, Priscilla Lane and Norman Lloyd.
Plot.
Aircraft factory worker Barry Kane is accused of starting a fire at the Stewart Aircraft Works in Glendale, California, an act of sabotage that killed his friend Mason. Kane believes the culprit is a man named Fry, who handed him a fire extinguisher filled with gasoline. The investigators find no one named "Fry" on the plant workers' list.
Kane remembers Fry's address after having seen it on an envelope, and travels to a ranch in the High Desert. The ranch owner, Charles Tobin, reveals he is working with the saboteurs. Kane learns from a piece of mail that Fry has gone to Soda City. Tobin calls the sheriff, but Kane escapes, taking refuge with a kind blind man whose niece, Patricia Martin, is a model famous for appearing on billboards. Although her uncle asks her to take Kane to the blacksmith shop to remove his handcuffs, she attempts to take him to the police. Kane insists he is innocent and kidnaps Martin. When he takes control of the car and stops, she jumps out and tries to signal a passing car. He uses her car's generator's fan belt pulley to break his handcuffs apart, causing the car to break down.
As night falls, the couple stows away on a circus train. The circus performers recognize them as fugitives but shield them from the police. Kane and Martin reach Soda City, a ghost town where the saboteurs are preparing to blow up Boulder Dam. Kane is discovered by the saboteurs but conceals Martin and convinces them that he is an ally. After foiling their plan, Kane convinces them to remove his manacles and take him with them to New York. He learns of their plan to sabotage the launching of a new U.S. Navy battleship at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Kane's performance has fooled Martin as well; she contacts the authorities, hoping to get to New York to obstruct the saboteurs' plans.
The saboteurs reach New York but find the phone at their office disconnected, indicating the police are on to them. They meet with New York dowager Mrs. Sutton and other conspirators during a party. Kane finds the captured Martin, who was betrayed by a corrupt sheriff. As Kane signals her to escape, Tobin arrives and exposes him. Tobin has Kane locked in the mansion's cellar. Martin is imprisoned in an office at Rockefeller Center. The next morning, Kane triggers a fire alarm to escape. Martin drops a note from the office window, which is found by cab drivers.
Kane reaches the Navy Yard a few minutes before the launch and searches for the saboteurs. He spots Fry in a fake newsreel camera truck, prepared to blow up the slipway during the launching. Their struggle prevents Fry from detonating the explosion until after the launch of the USS "Alaska" battleship.
Fry takes Kane prisoner, and with his two accomplices, returns to the Rockefeller Center office. The police and FBI, alerted by Martin's note, are waiting for them. The accomplices are caught, but Fry dodges into the back of Radio City Music Hall. He shoots a man in the audience and escapes in the panic. Kane sees Fry get into a taxi. Still holding Kane in custody, the FBI refuses to follow Fry, so Kane tells Martin to shadow the saboteur. She follows Fry onto the ferry to Bedloe's Island, attracting his attention, and then to the Statue of Liberty. She calls the FBI, and at their direction, goes into the statue to find Fry and distract him. In the statue's crown, she talks with Fry, stalling him until Kane and the FBI arrive.
Kane escapes his escort and encounters Martin, who tells him that Fry is escaping. Kane pursues Fry onto the torch, confronting him at gunpoint. While backing away from Kane, Fry falls over the platform's railing and clings to the statue's hand. Kane tries to save Fry, but as the police and FBI arrive, Fry falls to his death. Kane climbs back up and embraces Martin.
Production.
Development.
Hitchcock was under contract to David O. Selznick, so he first pitched the idea for the film to him; Selznick gave the okay for a script to be written, assigning John Houseman to keep an eye on its progress and direction. Val Lewton, Selznick's story editor, eventually rejected the script, which reviewer Leonard Maltin later called "extremely offbeat," so Selznick forced Hitchcock to offer it to other studios, "causing ill feelings between the producer and his director since it not only showed a lack of belief in Hitchcock's abilities, but also because the terms of Hitchcock's contract would net Selznick a three-hundred percent profit on the sale."
Universal signed on, but Hitchcock could not have the two actors he wanted for the leading roles. Gary Cooper was uninterested in the project and Barbara Stanwyck had other commitments. He settled on Robert Cummings who had a new contract with Universal, while Priscilla Lane was borrowed from Warner Bros. although her scenes had to wait while she finished "Arsenic and Old Lace", a production that was eventually shelved until its 1944 release.
In November 1941, Universal announced that Hitchcock would make the film for the studio, and it would be produced by Frank Lloyd and Jack Skirball. Cummings and Lane were to star. Hitchcock later said he was "lucky" to have "young players who are intelligent and sensitive to direction" and "players who are unmistakeably young American. It was easy to bring out the familiar qualities to make Bob seem the loveable boy at the next lathe or around the corner. In Priscilla too I had the resolute and daring attributes typical of American girlhood. I wanted the boy and girl in "Saboteur" to suggest the thrilling importance of unimportant people, to forget they were movie stars, to remember only that they were free and in terrible danger."
Universal did bring in Dorothy Parker to write a few scenes, "mostly the patriotic speeches given by the hero." Although Parker had been brought in to "punch up the dialogue", Hitchcock also called in Peter Viertel to continue to work on the script.
Hitchcock described the film as a series of "cameos" like "The 39 Steps". It was originally meant to finish with a climax at the movie theatre which was showing Abbott and Costello's film "Ride 'Em Cowboy". According to "The New York Times" "the studio feels that the booking will materially enhance the prestige of the comedians." However, that film was not used in the final movie.
Shooting.
Filming took place from December 1941 to February 1942.
Hitchcock used extensive location footage in the film, which was unusual for Hollywood productions at the time. Second unit director Vernon Keays and cinematographer Charles Van Enger shot exteriors in the Alabama Hills of Lone Pine, California, and John P. Fulton shot the background footage in New York City. For the New York city footage, special long lenses were used to shoot from great distances. One background shot shows a capsized ship in the harbor. Fry glances at it and smiles knowingly. The ship shown is the former "SS Normandie", which burned and sank in February 1942, leading to rumors of German sabotage.
There was clever matching of the location footage with studio shots, many using matte paintings for background, for example in shots of the western ghost town, "Soda City". The famed Statue of Liberty sequence takes place on the torch platform, which had actually been closed to public access since the Black Tom sabotage in 1916. A mock-up built for filming accurately depicted this part of the statue. The scene also used innovative visual effects. In particular, Lloyd lay on his side on a black saddle on a black floor while the camera was moved from close-up to 40 feet above him, making him appear to drop downward, away from the camera. Film taken from the top of the Statue was then superimposed onto the black background.
There was no music score for the film's Radio City sequence; instead, Hitchcock combined action shown on the theater screen (including gunshots) with the action in the theater. The contrast of the large screen images with the shootout below encompassed the audience into the action and was one of the more effective scenes in "Saboteur".
Hitchcock makes his trademark cameo appearance about an hour into the film (1:04:37), standing at a kiosk in front of Cut Rate Drugs in New York as the saboteurs' car pulls up. In his book-length interview with François Truffaut (Simon & Schuster, 1967), Hitchcock says he and Parker filmed a cameo showing them as the elderly couple who see Cummings and Lane hitchhiking and drive away, but that he decided to change that shot to the existing cameo.
Scripting, pre-production, and principal photography on "Saboteur" wrapped in 15 weeks, the fastest Hitchcock had ever worked. By January 1942, the film was in post-production. Early in April, "Saboteur" was "redflagged" by officials in the War Office who had concerns about the scene involving the "SS Normandie". Regarding this scene, Hitchcock said: "the Navy raised hell with Universal about these shots because I implied that the "Normandie" had been sabotaged, which was a reflection on their lack of vigilance in guarding it." Despite the official objections, the scene remained in the final film. "Saboteur" was premiered in Washington, D.C. on April 22, 1942, with Hitchcock, Cummings and Lane, along with 80 U.S. Senators and 350 U.S. Congressmen, in attendance.
Use of irony and symbolism.
Hitchcock made use of irony on numerous occasions in "Saboteur". For example, early in the film, the authorities are seen as menacing, while the well-respected rancher and kind grandfather is an enemy agent. In contrast, only ordinary folks and the down-on-their-luck perceive Kane's innocence and offer trust: a long-haul truck driver, a blind householder and the circus freaks. In New York City, wealthy Mrs. Sutton is secretly funding an enemy group.
"Saboteur" is an early example of the distrust of authority that is one of Hitchcock's hallmarks.
Driving along the New York waterfront, Kane's car passes by the capsized hulk of the liner "SS Normandie", an ominous warning of what could happen if the conspirators succeed in their plans.
The final battle symbolizing tyranny against democracy takes place on the torch of the Statue of Liberty.
Reception.
"Saboteur" did "very well at the box office even with its B-list cast"; it made a "tidy profit for all involved." Bosley Crowther of "The New York Times" called the film a "swift, high-tension film which throws itself forward so rapidly that it permits slight opportunity for looking back. And it hurtles the holes and bumps which plague it with a speed that forcefully tries to cover them up." Crowther commented that "so abundant [are] the breathless events that one might forget, in the hubbub, that there is no logic in this wild-goose chase"; he also questioned the "casual presentation of the FBI as a bunch of bungling dolts, [the film's] general disregard of authorized agents, and [its] slur on the navy yard police", all of which "somewhat vitiates the patriotic implications which they have tried to emphasize in the film."
"Time" magazine called "Saboteur" "one hour and 45 minutes of almost simon-pure melodrama from the hand of the master"; the film's "artful touches serve another purpose which is only incidental to "Saboteur"s melodramatic intent. They warn Americans, as Hollywood has so far failed to do, that fifth columnists can be outwardly clean and patriotic citizens, just like themselves."
Norman Lloyd recalls that Ben Hecht told Hitchcock after seeing the death of a character in the finale, "He should have had a better tailor."
Precursor to "North by Northwest".
Critic Rob Nixon, writing for Turner Classic Movies, points out that "Saboteur" shares several essential elements with Hitchcock's later movie "North by Northwest" (1959), including the ordinary/every-man protagonist who gets accused of a terrible crime and must avoid being captured by the police as he attempts to solve the mystery and clear his name (which is a recurring theme in Hitchcock's movies), and, the climactic scene in which the protagonist attempts to save another character from falling off a huge national monument.


Gordan Lederer

Gordan Lederer (21 April 1958 – 9 August 1991) was a Croatian photographer and Croatian Radiotelevision cameraman killed during the Croatian War of Independence.
Biography.
Lederer was born in Zagreb on 21 April 1958. His mother, Vlasta Lederer, was physician at the Zagreb hospital "Sveti Duh". After elementary and high school in Zagreb, he graduated photojournalism at the Yugoslav Journalism Institute in Belgrade. From 1983, Lederer studied film and television recording at the Academy of Dramatic Art, University of Zagreb from where he graduated in 1989.
In 1986, Lederer started studying archeology at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb, and in 1989 he began postgraduate education at Inter-University Centre in Dubrovnik. During his studies, with colleague Mojmír Konič, he produced 35 mm animated film "Muybridge and comp". The film earned the International Animated Film Association Award for Best Film at the 33rd Yugoslav Documentary and Short Film Festival in Belgrade.
From 1986 to 1989, Lederer worked as a cameraman on the animation films The Elm-Chanted Forest and The Magician's Hat. During that period, he made several animated video clips. As a photojournalist he worked for Vjesnik, Borba and Politika. From 1988 until his death, he was member of the Society of filmmakers. From 1987 until his death, Lederer worked as a cameraman for Croatian Radiotelevision.
As a cinematographer, in 1987, he filmed for TV Zagreb (now Croatian Radiotelevision) documentaries "Udruženje samaca" and "Badanj". Besides his regular work as cameraman and screenwriter, in cooperation with Dražzen Šimić since 1989 to 1990, he has conducted a series of independent clips about archaeology, history and travels. In 1990, he was the cinematographer of a documentary film "Tunguska katastrofa" about the Tunguska event.
Along with his work on documentaries, he also gained experience as a war cameraman in 1991 while recording on the Iran-Iraq border for the documentary "Kurdska kolijevka traži utočište".
Family.
Lederer and his wife, Ana, had one child, a daughter, Petra.
Death.
From the very beginning of the war in Croatia, Lederer filmed on all Croatian crisis spots as a cameraman for Croatian Radiotelevision. He filmed in Knin, Pakrac, Borovo Selo, Vukovar and Banovina.
On 9 August 1991, while filming Croatian soldiers in action in Banovina, he was struck by a sniper bullet fired from Rosulja near Hrvatska Kostajnica by a Serb sniper, Milan Zorić. His camera recorded the whole event.
As his body fell down the slope, he was hit by a Mortar shell whose shrapnel also wounded him.
Lederer died in the car on the way to Zagreb, as Andrija Rašeta, Yugoslav People's Army general of the V. military region, refused to authorize helicopter flight to transport Lederer to the hospital in Zagreb. He was buried at the Mirogoj Cemetery.
After her son's death, Lederer's mother. Vlasta, wrote a letter published in the Croatian daily newspaper "Vjesnik" on 14 August 1991:
In 1999, Milan Zorić was convicted in absentia at the County Court in Sisak for the murder of Lederer. On 18 September 2002, Zorić appealed at the Supreme Court of Croatia. The Supreme Court dismissed the charges against Zorić and the military court in Zagreb terminated the criminal proceedings following the application of the 1996 Amnesty Law.
Honors.
In 1993, Lederer was posthumously awarded with the Special Award by the Croatian Journalists' Association for outstanding service in the field of journalism during Croatian War of Independence. On the recommendation by the Vladimir Nazor Award committee, Lederer was awarded posthumously for his work with Special Award by Croatian Ministry of Culture. In 1996, he was awarded with the Order of Petar Zrinski and Fran Krsto Frankopan.


Hans Kissel

Hans Kissel (19 February 1897 – 30 November 1975) was a highly decorated Generalmajor in the Wehrmacht during World War II. He was also a recipient of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. The Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross was awarded to recognise extreme battlefield bravery or successful military leadership.


Three Came Home (book)

Three Came Home is a 1948 memoir written by Agnes Newton Keith, based on her experiences during the Japanese invasion of North Borneo. A film based on it was released in 1950 and featured Claudette Colbert in the lead role. Initially, Olivia de Havilland was chosen for the role. Originally published in 1948 by London publisher Michael Joseph, it was republished by Eland in 1985, and Eland released a new edition in 2002.
Background.
Keith had previously written "Land Below the Wind". Her husband, Harry Keith, was Conservator of Forests and Director of Agriculture in North Borneo. Their son George was born in 1940. When the Keiths were living in Borneo, it was attacked by the Imperial Japanese Army and they were interned there from January 1942 to September 1945. During her internment at Kuching Internment camp along with her son George, Keith suffered from malaria and typhoid. Her husband Harry was kept in a civilian men's camp.
Summary.
Women had to work very hard. When a Lt. General was to visit the camp, Commander Nekata orders the women to clear a strip of land where formerly rubber trees were grown and plant potato cuttings. They work the whole night and Nekata gets promoted when the Lt. General visited but the potato cuttings died very soon. At the camp, Keith is assaulted by a guard and also tortured. This results in a twisted arm and broken ribs. The Japanese are aware that she was a writer and is occasionally given a little extra food. Australian soldiers interned in a nearby camp send $50 to the women's camp through a Roman Catholic priest. Though initially they did not want to take the money, they later accepted and sent a letter of thanks to them. The condition of women is very poor and lack of sanitation and proper food made many of them sick. When Tatsuji Suga met her, he ordered her to write "The Life and Thoughts of an Internee". She agreed but titled her work "Captivity". She prepared notes separately for another work in minute handwriting on margins of old newspapers, reverse of labels and Chinese tobacco papers. She hid them in George's toys, pillows, sleeping mat and also in tins.
Reception.
W. G. Rogers called the book "sometimes shocking and often inspiring". Laura Scott Meyers wrote that the book "[was] a detailed and unvarnished account of what war was like for internees and prisoners of war". It was chosen by The Book of the Month Club as its Book of the Month for April 1947. David Judy praised Keith's humor and wrote that the book gave "a sense of what a truly successful marriage can be like even though the worst of circumstances arise." Joe Langston noted that "[Keith's] writing [was] strangely free from any hate of a particular people". Dorothy Canfield Fisher praised the book by saying "To read this book is like living through an experience rather than just reading about it". Joyce Nienstedt wrote that it was much more than a war book. Louise Parks Banes opined that "No more gallant story has ever been written than "Three Came Home". According to "The Gallup Independent", "[Keith's] account [was] one of the most stirring which has come out of the war".


Chinese Communist Revolution

The Chinese Communist Revolution, known in the mainland China as the War of Liberation (), was the conflict, led by the Communist Party of China and Chairman Mao Zedong, that resulted in the proclamation of the People's Republic of China, on 1 October 1949. The revolution began in 1946 after the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–45) and was the second part of the Chinese Civil War (1945–49).
Historical background.
Historians in China trace the origins of the 1949 Revolution to sharp inequalities in society and imperialist aggression. They charge that high rates of rent, usury and taxes concentrated wealth into the hands of a minority of village chiefs and landlords. One historian quotes the statistic that "Ten percent of the agricultural population of China possessed as much as two-thirds of the land". These historians also argue that imperialist pressure by the Western powers and the Japanese and "Century of Humiliation" starting with the Opium Wars and including unequal treaties, the Boxer Rebellion led to a rise in nationalism, class consciousness and leftism.
After internal unrest and foreign pressure weakened the Qing state, a revolt among newly modernized army officers led to the Xinhai Revolution, which ended 2,000 years of imperial rule and established the Republic of China. Following the end of World War I and October Revolution in Russia, Chinese radical intellectuals founded the Chinese Communist Party and followers of Sun Yat-sen founded the Chinese Nationalist Party.
The French historian Lucien Bianco, however, is among those who question whether imperialism and "feudalism" explain the revolution. He points out that the Chinese Communist Party did not have great success until the Japanese invasion of China after 1937. Before the war, the peasantry was not ready for revolution; economic reasons were not enough to mobilize them. More important was nationalism: "It was the war that brought the Chinese peasantry and China to revolution; at the very least, it considerably accelerated the rise of the CCP to power." The communist revolutionary movement had a doctrine, long-term objectives, and a clear political strategy that allowed it to adjust to changes in the situation. He adds that the most important aspect of the Chinese Communist movement is that it was armed.
Founding of the Communist Party of China.
The Communist Party of China was founded in 1921, during the May Fourth Movement, which Mao Zedong referred to as the birth of communism in China.
After a period of slow growth and alliance with the Kuomintang (Chinese Nationalist Party), the alliance broke down and the Communists fell victim in 1927 to a purge carried out by the Kuomintang under the leadership of Chiang Kai-shek. After 1927, the Communists retreated to the countryside and built up local bases throughout the country and continued to hold them until the Long March. During the Japanese invasion and occupation, the Communists built more secret bases in the Japanese occupied zones and relied on them as headquarters.
Chinese Civil War, 1945–1949.
The Nationalists had an advantage in both troops and weapons, controlled a much larger territory and population, and enjoyed broad international support. The Communists were well established in the north and northwest. The best-trained Nationalist troops had been killed in early battles against the better equipped Japanese Army and in Burma, while the Communists had suffered less severe losses. The Soviet Union, though distrustful, provided aid to the Communists, and the United States assisted the Nationalists with hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of military supplies, as well as airlifting Nationalist troops from central China to Manchuria, an area Chiang Kai-shek saw as strategically vital to retake. Chiang determined to confront the PLA in Manchuria and committed his troops in one decisive battle, the Battle of Liaohsi, in the autumn of 1948. The strength of Nationalist troops in July 1946 was 4.3 million, of which 2.3 million were well-trained and ready for country-wide mobile combat. However, the battle resulted in a decisive Communist victory and the Nationalists were never able to recover from it.
Result.
On October 1, 1949, Chairman Mao Zedong officially proclaimed the founding of the People's Republic of China at Tiananmen Square. Chiang Kai-shek, 600,000 Nationalist troops and about two million Nationalist-sympathizer refugees retreated to the island of Taiwan. After that, resistance to the Communists on the mainland was substantial but scattered, such as in the far south. An attempt to take the Nationalist-controlled island of Kinmen was thwarted in the Battle of Kuningtou. In December 1949 Chiang proclaimed Taipei, Taiwan the temporary capital of the Republic, and continued to assert his government as the sole legitimate authority of all China, while the PRC government continued to call for the unification of all China. The last direct fighting between Nationalist and Communist forces ended with the Communist capture of Hainan Island in May 1950, though shelling and guerrilla raids continued for several years. In June 1950, the outbreak of the Korean War led the American government to place the United States Seventh Fleet in the Taiwan Strait to prevent either side from attacking the other.


Fort Ebey State Park

Fort Ebey State Park is a public recreation area occupying the site of former Fort Ebey on the west side of Whidbey Island, west of Coupeville in Island County, Washington, United States. The state park covers overlooking the Strait of Juan de Fuca and lies within the Ebey's Landing National Historical Reserve. It is managed by the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission.
History.
Fort Ebey was built on Partridge Point in 1942 as a World War II coastal defense near the mouth of Puget Sound. The fort was named for Isaac Neff Ebey, a pioneering homesteader on Whidbey Island. The fort included a battery of two 6-inch guns that were later cut up for scrap.
The state first acquired the land through the purchase of 204 acres from the federal government in 1965. Additional acquisitions were made between 1968 and 1974, adding nearly 24 acres to the site. The park was further increased through a purchase from the Department of Natural Resources and a land swap arrangement with a private owner in 1990 and 1997. The park opened in 1981.
Activities and amenities.
The park includes of saltwater shoreline, the freshwater Lake Pondilla, and 25 miles of trails. A stretch of the Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail crosses the park. Park activities include picnicking, camping, fishing, beachcombing, and paragliding.


Frank Barone


Use of child suicide bombers by Palestinian militant groups

The use of child suicide bombers by Palestinian militant groups generally refers to the practice of using children for suicide bombings by Palestinian militant groups as part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Minors have been recruited to attack Israeli targets, both military and civilian, especially during the Second Intifada from 2000 to 2005. This deliberate involvement of children in armed conflict has been condemned by International human rights organizations.
According to Amnesty International, "Palestinian armed groups have repeatedly shown total disregard for the most fundamental human rights, notably the right to life, by deliberately targeting Israeli civilians and by using Palestinian children in armed attacks. Children are susceptible to recruitment by manipulation or may be driven to join armed groups for a variety of reasons, including a desire to avenge relatives or friends killed by the Israeli army."
History.
According to the Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers "2004 Global Report on the Use of Child Soldiers", there were at least nine documented suicide attacks involving Palestinian minors between October 2000 and March 2004 p. 292. In 2004, the Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers reported that "there was no evidence of systematic recruitment of children by Palestinian armed groups," also noting that this remains a small fraction of the problem in other conflict zones such as Africa, where there are an estimated 20,000 children involved in active combat roles in the Sudan alone. Human Rights Watch also reported that "there was no evidence that the Palestinian Authority (PA) recruited or used child soldiers."
According to the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group, in the al-Aqsa Intifada, children were used as "messengers and couriers, and in some cases as fighters and suicide bombers in attacks on Israeli soldiers and civilians" during the al-Aqsa Intifada. Fatah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad Movement and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine have all been implicated in involving children in this way. The issue was brought to world attention after a widely televised incident in which a mentally handicapped Palestinian teenager, Hussam Abdo, was disarmed at an Israeli checkpoint. The youngest Palestinian suicide bomber who blew himself up was Issa Bdeir, a 16-year-old high school student from the village of Al Doha. He blew himself up in a park in Rishon LeZion, killing a teenage boy and an elderly man.
According to the Israel Defense Forces, 29 suicide attacks were carried out by youth under the age of 18 in 2000–2003. From May 2001, 22 shootings attacks and attacks using explosive devices were carried out by youth under the age of 18, and more than 40 youths under the age of 18 were involved in attempted suicide bombings that were thwarted (three in 2004).
On March 24, 2004, one week after capturing a bomb in the bag of 12-year-old Abdullah Quran, Hussam Abdo, a 16-year-old Palestinian (who initially claimed he was 14), was captured in a checkpoint near Nablus wearing an explosive belt. The young boy was paid by the Tanzim militia to detonate himself at the checkpoint. IDF soldiers manning the checkpoint were suspicious of him and told him to stay away from people. Later, an EOD team arrived and by using a police-sapper robot, removed the explosive belt from him. Hussam explained that he was offered 100 NIS and sex with virgins if he would perform the task. He said his friends mocked him in class.
On May 30, 2004, "The New York Times" reported Israeli allegations that the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades were using children to recruit classmates as suicide bombers, and that one child, Nasser Awartani, 15, of Nablus allegedly recruited four of his classmates, one of whom was claimed by the Shabak report on Awartani to be Hussam Abdo.
On June 16, 2004, two girls, aged 14 and 15, were arrested by the IDF for allegedly plotting a suicide bombing. According to an IDF statement, the two children were recruited by activists from Tanzim (Fatah's armed wing), guided by Hezbollah.
On July 3, the Israeli Security Forces thwarted a suicide bombing that it claimed was to have been carried out by 16-year-old Muataz Takhsin Karini. Karini and two of his operators were arrested, while a 12 kg explosive belt was detonated safely by an Israeli EOD crew. On June 5, IDF forces detonated two explosive belts concealed in schoolbags. On July 14, the Shin Bet in Kfar Maskha arrested 17-year-old suicide bomber Ahmed Bushkar, from Nablus.
On September 23, 2004, a day before Yom Kippur, the Shin Bet and the Israel Police announced their capture of a 15-year-old suicide bomber and a 7 kg explosive belt in the village of Dir-Hana in the Western Galilee. The 15-year-old was part of joint terrorist cell of Tanzim and Palestinian Islamic Jihad from Yamon village near Jenin. The four were Palestinians who worked illegally in Israel. The 15-year-old was allegedly paid 1000 shekels in order to blow himself up in Afula.
According to a Shabak report published on September 26, 2004, about 292 Palestinian children have been involved in terrorism.
On September 27, 2004, a 15-year-old suspected suicide bomber was arrested in Nablus. On October 28, Ayub Maaruf, a 16-year-old Fatah suicide bomber, was arrested near Nablus along with his operator.
On November 1, 16-year-old Aamer Alfar blew himself up in Tel Aviv's Carmel Market, killing 3 Israelis in a suicide bombing that was claimed by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Alfar's mother and father condemned what they saw as the exploitation of their son:
God will curse those who recruited Amar. I had heard the stories about recruiting children in Nablus but I didn't think they were true... Yes, it is difficult here for everyone because of the occupation, and life in Nablus is intolerable, but children should not be exploited in this way.
On February 3, 2005, Mahmoud Tabouq, a 15- or 16-year-old Palestinian, was arrested at the Huwara checkpoint near Nablus carrying a bag containing an explosive belt, an improvised gun, and 20 bullets. The belt was detonated safely by a Magav bomb squad.
On April 12, a 15-year-old Palestinian boy identified as Hassan Hashash was caught at Huwara checkpoint hiding five pipe bombs under his coat. He tried to ignite them with a match when the soldiers apprehended him. Later he was disarmed, and sappers detonated the bombs safely. Family members of Hashash suggested that he deliberately carried bombs into an IDF checkpoint in order to be arrested and study for the "Bagrut" final exams in the Israeli jail. A week later, another Palestinian youth (aged 17) was caught carrying explosives in Beit Furik checkpoint.
On April 27, two teenagers, aged 15 (though other sources cite their ages as 12 and 13), were arrested at a checkpoint near Jenin after 11 explosive charges were found on them. One teenager was recruited by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the other by the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades. The two told interrogators that they had been acting as couriers for terrorists, but security forces suspect they planned to get close to the soldiers and then detonate the charges.
On May 22, Iad Ladi, a 14- or 15-year-old Palestinian suicide bomber was arrested at a Huwara checkpoint near Nablus. This was the 14th time during April and May that a Palestinian child was arrested as a bomber or a courier. Two days later, another 15-year-old Palestinian teen carrying two pipe bombs, was caught at the same checkpoint. On June 15, The Israeli press reported that the Shabak arrested a Palestinian militant cell in Nablus during the previous month. The cell included eight members, four of whom were child suicide bombers. The cell was on the verge of committing another suicide bombing attack using the four children. According to the Shin Bet, the cell was directed and funded by the Fatah's Tanzim branch and the Lebanese group Hezbollah.
On October 11, a 14-year-old Palestinian boy was arrested by IDF forces. He told the soldiers he was forced to agree to commit a suicide bombing when two terrorists from Fatah's Tanzim faction threatened to murder him by spreading a leaflet accusing him of collaboration unless he agreed. They took pictures of him with a gun and the Qur'an and forced him to write his own will.
On August 27, a 15-year-old Palestinian boy carrying two explosive devices on his body was arrested in the northern Gaza Strip after he attempted to carry out an attack against soldiers operating in the area against Palestinians launching Qassam rockets on Israeli civilians across the border inside Israel.
Use of indoctrination.
According to emeritus professor of psychiatry at the University of Virginia School of Medicine Vamik Volkan,
Most suicide bombers in the Middle East are chosen as teenagers, "educated", and then sent off to perform their duty when they are in their late teens or early to mid-twenties. The "education" is most effective when religious elements of the large-group identity are provided as solutions for the personal sense of helplessness, shame, and humiliation. Replacing borrowed elements sanctioned by God for one's internal world makes that person omnipotent and supports the individual's narcissism.
I found that there was little difficulty in finding young men interested in becoming suicide bombers in Gaza and the West Bank. Repeated actual and expected events humiliate youngsters and interfere with their adaptive identifications with their parents because their parents are humiliated as well.
Volkan gives the examples of beatings, torture, or the loss of a parent as typical humiliating events that might make a young person more susceptible to recruitment for suicide terrorism.
Once recruited, children and teenagers are encouraged to cut off contact with "real world" affairs and subjected to an intense program of memorization and repetition of the Qur'an based more on sound than on meaning.
The typical technique of creating Middle Eastern Muslim suicide bombers includes two basic steps: first, the "teachers" find young people whose personal identity is already disturbed and who are seeking an outer "element" to internalize so they can stabilize their internal world. Second, they develop a "teaching method" that "forces" the large-group identity, ethnic and/or religious, into the "cracks" of the person's damaged or subjugated individual identity. Once people become candidates to be suicide bombers, the routine rules and regulations, so to speak, or individual psychology does not fully apply to their patterns of thought and action.
Anne Speckhard, adjunct associate Professor of Psychiatry, Georgetown University Medical Center and Professor of Psychology, Vesalius College, Free University of Brussels, writes:
In the Palestinian territories, there currently exists a "cult of martyrdom". From a very young age children are socialized into a group consciousness that honors "martyrs", including human bombers who have given their lives for the fight against what is perceived by Palestinians to be the unjust occupation of their lands. Young children are told stories of "martyrs". Many young people wear necklaces venerating particular "martyrs", posters decorate the walls of towns and rock and music videos extol the virtues of bombers. Each act of suicide terrorism is also marked by a last testament and video, which are prepared ahead of time by the "martyr" who can later reach great popularity when the video is played on television. Despite the very deep and real grief of the family and friends left behind, the funerals of "martyrs" are generally accompanied with much fanfare by community and sponsoring organization. Often, the effect of this is confusing to outsiders as it can disrupt, delay and even circumvent the family's ability to focus on its grief over the loss of a family member and it may even support the family in claiming to outsiders joy over the loss of its loved one. This "cult of martyrdom", which has a strong underpinning in longstanding cultural roots (the honoring of martyrs), appears to have developed principally over the last decade, as the first act of suicide terrorism occurred in Israel only twelve years ago.
Umm Nidal, who sent three of her sons, including one 17-year-old, on suicide attacks, said "I love my children, but as Muslims we pressure ourselves and sacrifice our emotions for the interest of the homeland. The greater interest takes precedence to the personal interest." She was later elected to the Palestinian legislature on the Hamas ticket. According to Human Rights Watch, Major Palestinian armed groups, including Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas, have publicly disavowed the use of children in military operations, but those stated policies have not always been implemented. Some leaders, including representatives of Islamic Jihad and Hamas, have said that they consider children of 16 to be adults. International law defines a child as any person under the age of eighteen. [...] Israeli government policy in the Occupied Territories defines Palestinians under the age of 16 as minors while Israeli children in the same territories are considered minors until they reach the age of 18.
Baby Suicide Bomber photo.
The Baby Suicide Bomber refers to a photo that received media attention in 2002.
During a search done June 29, 2002, of a house belonging to a Hamas militant in the town of Hebron, The IDF claims to have found a photo showing an 18-month infant standing wide-eyed in a baby suit, Red wires strapped to his waist, with a pretend explosives belt, and across his head tied a red bandana of Hamas.
According to BBC News the baby's grandfather, Redwan Abu Turki, said that the dressing of the infant baby as a bomber was from a rally at the university and "the picture was taken just for the fun of it."
Israeli newspapers published the photograph under headlines such as "Terror in Diapers" and "Born to Kill". Israeli Prime Minister Sharon's advisor Dore Gold said the picture "symbolizes the hatred and incitement which the Palestinian leadership has been feeding a whole generation of Palestinian youths." At the U.S. State Department, spokesman Richard Boucher stated that he considered the image as "a highly objectionable display".
While Palestinian officials dismissed it as a propaganda trick, "Haaretz" reported that a Palestinian journalist in the Hebron area said she did not believe the picture was a fake and expressed surprise at the furor it caused in Israel
Other photos of children dressed up as militants have been published since then.