UN Rapporteur a Truther

"That's right," says the national security adviser, "did you read in the file I prepared that New York Times op-ed piece from February 1979 by Richard Falk, the professor of international law at Princeton? He visited Khomeini in France. His article complained that the ayatollah was maligned when Carter and Brzezinski 'until recently associated him with religious fanaticism.' Falk protests that 'The news media have defamed him in many ways, associating him with efforts to turn the clock back 1,300 years, with virulent anti-Semitism, and with a new political disorder, "theocratic fascism" about to be set loose on the world.' He explains to readers that Khomeini 'indicated' that non-religious leftists would be able to participate fully in an Islamic republic and that 'to suppose that Ayatollah Khomeini is dissembling seems almost beyond belief.' He adds that 'the depiction of him as fanatical, reactionary, and the bearer of crude prejudices seems certainly and happily false.' [8]

"The article is entitled 'Trusting Khomeini,'" you note. "I hope he doesn't write on 'Trusting Arafat' to convince Israelis to make concessions to the Palestinians. People will run into Sharon's arms after reading it."

"There's more," says the national security adviser. "Anthony Lewis then wrote a Times column chastising Falk for 'trusting in illusions'-things were getting increasingly repressive in Khomeini's Iran-and Falk insists that 'to single out Iran for criticism at this point is to lend support to that fashionable falsehood, embraced by Mr. Lewis, that what has happened in Iran is the replacement of one tyranny by another.'" [9]

8]Richard Falk, "Trusting Khomeini," New York Times, February 16, 1979
9]Richard Falk, "In Iran, a 'Balance of Hopeful Signs'" (Letter to the Editor) New York Times, March 28, 1979.

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=344

In a February 16, 1979, op-ed for the New York Times, Mr. Falk praised Ayatollah Khomeini and bemoaned his ill treatment in the American press. He wrote, "The depiction of him as fanatical, reactionary and the bearer of crude prejudices seems certainly and happily false." Nearly nine months later, student followers of Khomeini invaded the American embassy in Tehran and held 52 diplomats hostage for the following 444 days.

http://www.nysun.com/news/foreign/un-official-calls-study-neocons-role-911

Trusting Khomeini

By Richard Falk ();
February 16, 1979,
, Section , Page A27, Column , words

[ DISPLAYING ABSTRACT ]

PRINCETON, N.J. Part of the confusion in America about Iran's social revolution involves Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. More even than any third-world leader, he has been depicted in a manner calculated to frighten.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstr...0994DA405B898BF1D3&scp=3&sq=richard+falk&st=p

ABROAD AT HOME Trusting In Illusions

By Anthony Lewis ();
March 12, 1979,
, Section , Page A17, Column , words

[ DISPLAYING ABSTRACT ]

BOSTON, March 11--Shortly before Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Iran, he was visited in Paris by an American group that included Ramsey Clark, the former Attorney General, and Richard Falk, Professor of...

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstr...0994DB405B898BF1D3&scp=1&sq=richard+falk&st=p

Falk's reply to Lewis
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstr...0A94DB405B898BF1D3&scp=2&sq=richard+falk&st=p

$ 3.95 ea if you want to read more
 
Last edited:
Falk has posted his defense:

For anyone who read the blog post in its entirely it should be plain that the reference to the 9/11 issues is both restrained and tangential. What is stressed in the blog is the importance of carefully examining evidence before drawing conclusions about political and legal responsibility for highly sensitive public acts, and the importance for the serenity of the society of achieving closure in a responsible manner. I never endorsed doubts about the official version of 9/11 beyond indicating what anyone who has objectively examined the controversy knows– that there remain certain gaps in the official explanation that give rise to an array of conspiratorial explanations, and that the 9/11 Commission unfortunately did not put these concerns to rest. My plea was intended to encourage addressing these gaps in a credible manner, nothing more, nothing less. I certainly meant no disrespect toward the collective memory of 9/11 in the country and elsewhere. On the contrary, my intention was to encourage an investigation that might finally achieve closure with respect to doubts that remain prevalent among important sectors of the public, including among some 9/11 families.

What seems apparent from this incident, which is itself disturbing, is that any acknowledgement of doubt about the validity of the official version of the 9/11 events, while enjoying the legal protection of free speech, is denied the political and moral protection that are essential if an atmosphere of free speech worthy of a democracy is to be maintained. When high officials can brand someone who raises some doubts in the most cautious language as ‘an enemy of the people,’ then there are either things to hide or a defensive fury that is out of all proportion to the provocation. To seek further inquiry into the unanswered questions about 9/11 is surely not an unreasonable position.
Click to expand...

Shorter Falk: I'm just asking questions, and doesn't free speech mean free from criticism? As a reminder, Falk's initial post cited David Ray Griffin:

What fuels suspicions of conspiracy is the reluctance to address the sort of awkward gaps and contradictions in the official explanations that David Ray Griffin(and other devoted scholars of high integrity) have been documenting in book after book ever since his authoritative The New Pearl Harbor in 2004 (updated in 2008).
Click to expand...

Except that David Ray Griffin believes some of the nuttiest stuff out there about 9-11. He still claims 8 of the hijackers are alive, still insists that Airfones were not installed on Flight 77, still claims that Barbara Olsen never called her husband that day. The idea that he's a devoted scholar of high integrity is something that even many Troofers have come to understand is untrue.
 
Brainster said:
Falk has posted his defense:



Shorter Falk: I'm just asking questions, and doesn't free speech mean free from criticism? As a reminder, Falk's initial post cited David Ray Griffin:



Except that David Ray Griffin believes some of the nuttiest stuff out there about 9-11. He still claims 8 of the hijackers are alive, still insists that Airfones were not installed on Flight 77, still claims that Barbara Olsen never called her husband that day. The idea that he's a devoted scholar of high integrity is something that even many Troofers have come to understand is untrue.
Click to expand...

Spot on, Brainster.

A comment by Falk on the initial post page:

My comment intended only to support the effort to investigate further unexplained gaps in the official version that have disturbed large number of persons who have looked into the facts.
Click to expand...

"I'm just asking questions, and I know the answers I want to hear are from twoofers."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom