By D. Hsu

A month ago, federal authorities arrested Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis for trying to blow up the Federal Reserve Bank of New York with what he thought was 1,000 pounds of explosives. Luckily for New York City denizens, the bomb was actually a dud prepared by federal authorities and the NYPD, given to Nafis in an undercover anti-terrorism investigation.

Reports have described Nafis more as a bumbling paper tiger than a terrorist mastermind. The ambitious 21-year-old Bangledeshi man came to the U.S. on a student visa with the sole purpose of waging jihad, but soon caught the FBI’s attention when he unwittingly approached an FBI informant to be his accomplice. As the FBI tracked Nafis in the months that followed, it became clear that Nafis lacked both the resources and wit required to carry out a terrorist attack. Although Nafis supported Al Qaeda ideology, he had no real connection to the organization whatsoever. One can only wonder if Nafis’ ambitions would have ever amounted to a threatening act if the government had not interfered.

Defense attorneys have often accused the federal government of entrapping would-be terrorists. They argue that the government persuades perpetrators to commit terrorist attacks rather than finding the perpetrators ready and willing to commit them. If the allegations against Nafis are true—that he came to the U.S. solely to wage jihad and he actively sought out accomplices—he was indeed found ready and willing and was not entrapped. However, statistics suggest that Nafis would not be in any better a position if the facts were any grayer. 100% of the jihadist terrorism cases involving an undercover agent that have gone to trial since 9/11 have resulted in either a guilty plea or conviction—notably greater than the 77% rate of guilty pleas or convictions for non-jihadist terrorism cases. Then there is still the looming question of whether the great lengths that the government has taken to arrest jihadist paper tigers like Nafis look more like witch hunts than safety measures.

The American public has been understandably sensitive to jihadist terrorism plots since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. This public sentiment could very well be affecting criminal investigations and judicial outcomes, compromising the legal system and its pursuit of justice when handling jihadist terrorist suspects. In pop culture media, we often rally for justice to prevail over public sentiment. In To Kill a Mockingbird, we beg the white jury of the 1930s Deep South to set an obviously innocent Black man free. In HBO’s John Adams miniseries, we attribute great virtues to our second President for defying angry Colonial mobs and defending the much reviled—and innocent—British soldiers in court. The examples in our literature, music, and movies are abundant. But could we make that same rally cry for justice in present situations that are much more personal to us? Could we ever sympathize with a jihadist terrorist suspect like Nafis? And if justice truly called for it, could we ever let a jihadist terrorist suspect go free?

By S. Edwards

This country can’t get enough of a good sex scandal when it involves high level politicians and who can blame us really they make for great stories. The latest man to have been caught in the delicious media web being spun around his personal life is Gen. David Petraeus former director of the CIA. Last week the story broke about his affair with biographer Paula Broadwell and the rest was history. The FBI, suspecting a possible security breach, investigated the affair after a woman complained of receiving harassing emails from Broadwell and shortly after the story broke Gen. Petraeus resigned from his position as CIA director.

A man lauded for his dedication and patriotism stepped down after over 37 years of public service after admitting to having an extramarital affair. The story never just ends there. It goes on with countless articles written about Broadwell, her background, betrayal and the details of the time they spent together because we all must know the exact moment the affair began. The story has consistently dominated top headlines spots on news sites at the same time tensions seem to be coming to a head in Gaza.

Stories like these seem to catch on quickly and stay on our radars for a while. Why? Because everyone wants to know every detail of how these great men seemingly risked their careers and lives for the thrill or passion of an affair. I think it is human nature to believe that each of us will be the exception and not the rule.  It is likely that at the start of the affair a though of what one could lose enters the mind and leaves quickly. People want to feel in control especially when they aren’t doing something they probably should be doing.

Stories about people in high places trusted by many to know when to do the right thing caught in this sexual scandals seems so perplexing on its face because these are people who are paid to make judgment calls on a regular basis. Someone with such a mind must surely be aware of all they have to lose. However, we all know that most of us compartmentalize very well and certain rules only apply to specific areas of our lives. I also believe these stories are so fascinating because they make us confront some of our own behaviors and beliefs. We want to know the moment when things shifted from flirtation to something more because it matters. It is important maybe in part because people want to know what that moment looks for someone else in hopes that they might be able to identify it in their own lives and avoid it.  If the people we believe in the most exhibit behavior that is questionable then what does it say about the way we mere mortals might act. The thought probably scares a lot of us because no matter who you are there is always something to lose.

By Joel Seidemann

The media has its own highs and lows in reporting on high profile cases. A responsible media must accurately report what has transpired.  But it must do more than that. As the Supreme Court said  “The press does not simply publish information about trials but guards against miscarriage of justice by subjecting the police, prosecutors, and judicial processes to extensive public scrutiny and criticism.”

The Supreme Court recognized another side of the media: that often the media consists of “circulation-conscious editors catering to the insatiable interest of the American public in the bizarre.”

On November 21, 2012, Investigation Discovery aired a documentary entitled “My Brother the Serial Killer”, examining the story that serial killer Glen Rogers had killed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman and not OJ Simpson. Glen Rogers is a Florida death row inmate charged with killing five women in different states. Glen Rogers’ brother Clay to whom Glen allegedly confessed the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman narrated the documentary. The Brown family and Goldman family were both outraged by the documentary. The alleged confessions don’t exactly absolve OJ.  Rogers claims OJ sent him to break into Nicole Brown Simpson’s home and steal diamond earrings OJ had given her. According to Rogers, Simpson told Rogers “you may have to kill the bitch.”

Without even having seen the documentary, I ask these questions: Is the documentary based solely upon the words of Glen Rogers, a death row inmate who admitted to killing 70 women? Since the admissions were allegedly made to his brother Clay, how much did Clay get paid for his role in the documentary?  What INVESTIGATION did Investigation Discovery conduct? What corroboration is there for this alleged confession made by a sociopath to his brother, a man with a monetary motive? Finally, is this what the Supreme Court was taking about when they spoke of “circulation conscious editors catering to America’s fascination with the bizarre.”

By Alex Farber

Last weekend, I saw Ben Affleck’s new film, “Argo.” The movie tells the story of the CIA operation behind the capture and rescue of the six American diplomats rescued from Iran during the hostage crisis in 1980. The first scenes of the movie detail the modern-day history of the Iranian region – the rise and eventual fall of a series of governments, the United State’s offer of asylum to the Shah, and the subsequent backlash in Iran over the refusal of the United States to return the leader to his home country for trial and justice. Iranian protestors take to the streets in protest and, eventually, break through the barriers to the American embassy and seize control of the building and the American diplomats inside, in what would go down in history as the Iran Hostage Crisis. All together, it is a rather terrifying scene – chaos and panic take over as the angry mob breaks through the doors to the American embassy and the diplomats bravely attempt to incinerate and smash all of the sensitive material in the embassy, knowing all too well that they will not be able to escape themselves. As I watched the events unfold, it struck me as remarkable that almost thirty-three years later, not much has changed. The protests and political unrest continues in the Middle East. On September 11, 2012 – just over two months ago – Al Qaeda orchestrated a terrorist attack on the American embassy in Libya, and the murder of Ambassador John Christopher Stevens and three other American diplomats in Benghazi. Yet, there is one startling difference between the 1980 attack on the Iranian embassy and the 2012 attack on the Libyan embassy– the reaction of the American people. Following the chaotic seizure of the Iranian embassy in “Argo,” the film fasts forward to depict daily life in the United States, sixty-nine days later. Yellow ribbons are everywhere – on front doors of homes and offices, on the backs of cars, tied to trees – as a showing of support for the hostages and a reminder that some justice must be served. Television news programs and newspapers are filled with non-stop, up-to-date information about the crisis and the government’s attempts to bring the hostages home. Overall, there is a feeling of anger and outrage surrounding the attacks, and a nationwide sense of pride and unity in the American people with the common goal to bring the hostages home. Notably, the sense of passion that existed in 1980 does not seem to exist in the United States today. How is it that we, as Americans, are not more outraged by the slaughter of American diplomats on the 11th anniversary of the greatest terrorist attack in our nation’s history? Where are our yellow ribbons? Where are the headlines detailing the US attempts to hunt down our attackers and bring them to justice? Where is our anger? Where is our desire for retaliation? If anything, the most significant chatter about the events in Libya have been politicized attempts, in the wake of the presidential election, to attribute blame to the American administration. Perhaps, we have grown accustomed to images of constant turmoil in the Middle East. Perhaps, we are just sick of seeing it, hearing about it, talking about it. Still, this seems to be no excuse for the absence of any real national fury over the deaths of our country’s diplomatic leaders.

By Matthew Hunter Platt

There is probably not a single person in the northeast who has not, nor knows someone who has not been affected by the ravages of Hurricane Sandy, the aptly named “Frankenstorm.” Much of Sandy’s intense strength came from the battle between hot and cold air masses as she transformed from a Tropical storm into an Extra-Tropical storm. She flooded subway systems, closed airports, shut down highways, and forcibly evacuated thousands of New Yorkers. Hundreds of thousands lost electricity, water, sanitary conditions or worse. Even now, a number of weeks after Sandy first arrived, millions are experiencing gasoline shortages. Yet, Sandy demonstrates the humanity and unity that America is capable of.

Americans reached into their pockets to contribute to the NBC “Hurricane Sandy: Coming Together” benefit for the Red Cross, raising $23 million dollars for victims of Sandy. Locally, New Yorkers, those spared and afflicted alike, helped their less fortunate friends and neighbors by hosting hurricane parties (read: extended sleepovers) in an attempt to make the best of a terrible situation. There are numerous food and clothing drives being sponsored by big and small businesses for the benefit of Sandy’s victims. Even the notorious underbelly of New York City seems to have given respite in the wake of Sandy’s devastation with crime dropping by a third during the days that followed. New York City has been imbued with a sense of community, in contrast to the hyper-independence that New Yorkers have become famous for.

In an election season, it is easy to get caught up in the divisiveness which is apparent by the numerous political ads being hurled at us on a daily basis. It is easier still to forget the core American values of community and charity. I find myself asking, do the best human attributes shine brightest in the wake of disaster? Are we most charitable when times are toughest? Or, is our altruistic nature only highlighted but not defined by tragedy? In the aftermath of Sandy, President Obama and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, stalwarts of their respective political parties, worked closely together to assist millions of New Jersey residents whose worlds have been drastically altered by Sandy. Their cooperation should remind us of our political system’s true purpose, to voice competing opinions on how to strengthen America.

Now that the election has come and passed, I hope that the next four years are not defined by the same partisanship which defined the last four. In 2008, the American people were promised bipartisanship but instead received  a divided government with each party placing blame on the other. Perhaps, the devastation that Sandy brought will remind us what is really important: a vibrant future and strong America. Maybe then, our elected officials can get past their egos and recognize that most issues are not black and white and that the best solutions require compromise. Our sense of community, as Americans, should not only be visible during times of disaster, but instead should always be on display.

By: Kris S.

I recently stumbled upon a film that swept by unnoticed by most, unfortunately, the fate of many movies that don’t aim to prove their worth solely on the basis of box office numbers. Having figured this out a while ago, I’ve been catching up on some great movies that weren’t hyped before being released. This weekend that movie was Detachment, starring Adrien Brody. Brody stars as a substitute teacher who, with memories of his negative childhood still fresh in his mind, wanders from school to school taking up short substituting gigs. Having lost much of his faith in humanity based on his childhood experiences, he believes these short stints conveniently save him from establishing an emotional attachment to his students. However, this substituting gig turns out to be different.

I don’t want to spoil the movie, but Brody’s experiences this time around finally begin to change his perspective. Most importantly, it is those things that are most often overlooked in the legal system that make a difference. As teachers and parents struggle to place blame on each other over the academic failings of the students at Brody’s high school, what slowly begins to turn Brody around are the deep emotions and experiences of particular individuals he meets. As everybody around him measures kids by an academic statistic, much like the legal system’s objective standards, Brody pierces through that veil and sees them for who they are. Slowly, as he learns more, the spiritual connections he makes begin to erode his own detachment.

The movie is a great example of the power of the spiritual world. On the one hand, we witness the human disconnect between teachers, parents, and students, and on the other, we see how, with effort, even the most objectively incompatible individuals may connect. It’s a great lesson, once again confirming the stark contrast between assessing someone on the surface for what they seem to be, and actually reaching out to open up the curtain hiding everything behind it. Like an iceberg, often times the 90% is under water. The first step is understanding that, the next is seeing what that 90% is about before passing judgment.

By Erin Bundra

Isaiah Sheffer, Founding Artistic Director of Symphony Space, passed away last week at the age of 76.  Apart from the significant legacy he left through his work at Symphony Space and his numerous artistic contributions to the New York community, he was one of the judges for the inaugural Forum Short Film Competition this year.

Reading through the many memories left on his Symphony Space page, it is clear that he will be fondly remembered and deeply missed.  Whether the story is from someone who knew him for years or someone who just caught a portion of his readings, his compassion, kindness, and enjoyment of life are echoed throughout.

Given the thousands of cultural events Isaiah had a hand in producing, writing, directing, and hosting, the Forum is greatly honored that judging the FOLCS Awards for the Short Film Competition was the last NYC cultural event in which he was directly involved. New York has undoubtedly lost an incredible visionary, beloved friend, and respected mentor, but his influence will live on through the indelible marks he left on countless lives and hearts across the city.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/11/arts/isaiah-sheffer-76-a-founder-of-symphony-space-dies.html

By S.R.

This past September, the UN had its general assembly and invited Ahmadinejad to speak as it always does, and we allowed him to speak as we always do. The day he spoke was September 26, 2012. That day also happened to be Yom Kippur; the holiest day for the Jews. At that time, the Internet was abuzz with why we would allow such a man to speak on such a day. On the flip side, the Internet was also abuzz with why it matters to the rest of the world what day it is. If the Jewish People hold this day in such high accord, it doesn’t mean everyone else has to as well. I must say that I agree with the latter. As a Jew myself, Yom Kippur is important to me because it’s a day of repentance when I am cleansed of my sins. What Ahmadinejad says or does on that day makes zero difference to me. Maybe it can be said that the UN should have been more sensitive and not have had him speak on that day. But that doesn’t bother me. What bothers me is that the UN should have been more sensitive and not have had Ahmadinejad speak at all. At what point does one lose their right to address the UN assembly? Why does the UN still allow a holocaust denying, genocide-promoting psychopath to hold center stage?

I guess my question is, how can we as a society, even an extremely tolerant one, allow an obviously crazy person to spew his hatred on the floor of the UN, in front of the whole world?

When do we say “Enough, you don’t get the right to talk anymore”? Its one thing to deny ancient history; it’s only your word against the history books. But here, there are still survivors who lived through and clearly remember the Holocaust. How can Ahmadinejad have the gall to tell these people, and the world, it didn’t happen? This and nothing else should be grounds for never allowing him to speak ever again. But no, we have the First Amendment, and that gives anyone the right to say anything. There is almost no limit to what someone can say. But I believe there are times when we have to say enough is enough. But we don’t. We never do. Any idiot can say whatever he wants and has free reign because of the First Amendment. The main problem with this is that when everything is protected because all speech is sacred, then nothing is. Looking back at the UN, they elected Iran to its Commission on the Status of Women. I repeat, they handed the protection of women’s rights to Iran, where stoning is enshrined in law and lashings are required for women judged “immodest.”

So maybe my question really is, why am I not surprised?

By Thomas Raccuia

Eugene Jarecki’s powerful documentary The House I Live In is surely still fresh in the minds of many Forum fans.  For those who were unable to attend the screening last month during the Forum Film Festival, the The House I Live In explores the many failures of this country’s War on Drugs, argues that the human cost of criminalizing innocuous substances like marijuana is unacceptable, and concludes that the war must be abandoned or rethought (I am not quite doing Jarecki justice here. The House I Live In is currently playing at Cinema Village on East 12th Street—go see it.).

I am not writing to discuss The House I Live In, but the film is relevant to what I am about to discuss.  I am here instead to highlight something which may have gone overlooked in the post-election media frenzy.  President Obama’s reelection has predictably dominated the news, as has recognition of same-sex marriage in Maine, Maryland, and Minnesota.  The voters in those states have been justifiably commended for their historic contribution to the civil rights movement, but they were not alone making such a contribution this election.  By voting to legalize marijuana, the people of Colorado and Washington have left their own small imprint on the civil rights movement as well.

I know what you’re thinking: “Marijuana a civil rights issue?  The comparison is an insult to the legacy of those who sacrificed and struggled in the ‘60s.”  Bear with me; I think you might agree that I’m not insulting anyone if you keep reading.

In the U.S. today there are more people in prison for nonviolent drug crimes than were incarcerated for all offenses in 1970 (Nixon declared the War on Drugs in 1971).  More than half of all arrests for nonviolent drug crimes in 2009 were for possession of marijuana.  Black people are sent to prison for drug offenses ten times more often than white people are, even though blacks and whites use drugs at roughly equal rates.  Jarecki discusses these statistics in The House I Live In, but the film also shows faces and tells stories—it humanizes the numbers—something I cannot do here with words.  What the film makes absolutely clear is that the War on Drugs has been devastating to the black community.  Again, go see them film if you haven’t already.

We cannot know why individual citizens in Washington and Colorado voted to legalize marijuana (surely many of them did so for no reason other than that they enjoy smoking marijuana), but the fact that they did so must be recognized as a repudiation of the War on Drugs.  Americans are beginning to realize that criminalizing marijuana does little more than destroy the lives of many nonviolent people, a disproportionate number of whom are black.  Marijuana is still illegal in Colorado and Washington under Federal law, and it is unclear how President Obama’s Justice Department will react to legalization at the state level.  But what is certain is that if marijuana is ever legalized nationally (as many expect it will be), we will not look at it as merely a victory for stoners, but as historic moment for civil rights.

Among the various gaffes by presidential candidates, few were more damaging than Governor Mitt Romney’s infamous “47 percent” comments. Romney claimed that 47 percent of Americans do not pay income tax, “depend on” the government, and “believe that they are victims” who are “entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.”  He added that his “job is not to worry about those people” since he will never convince them to “take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”  The media criticized Romney because the President’s job is to represent the whole country’s citizenry and not a fraction of them.  While the comment served as a basis for political quips, it is important to consider the merits and underlying bases of Romney’s “47 percent mentality” (“the mentality”), which—by focusing on short-term economics and neglecting due consideration of the policy’s social ramifications—tramples on human rights and American values.

The Declaration of Independence embraces as a self-evident truth that government must “secure” the “unalienable Rights” that all people have by virtue of birth, including “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid federal and state governments from depriving anyone of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”  These rights of man are “self-evident” because they are human rights.  To obstruct them is to deny human worth.  This was all self-evident over two hundred years ago; one should not need to resort to the Declaration to realize that.

The myopic mentality holds that everyone is entitled to pursue happiness but that happiness itself is not guaranteed.  As Governor Romney said, people “should take personal responsibility and care for their own lives.”  However, Romney fails to realize that while people do need to take “personal responsibility,” they need the means to do so as well.  Otherwise, the right to pursue happiness is merely an unattainable facade.

Employment is the predominant means of achieving life, liberty, property, and happiness.  However, many fail to understand that the hungry, sick, and indigent might be unable to conduct a thorough job search, interview well, or work full days.  Furthermore, employers would be less likely to hire such people since those factors can contribute to underperformance and might raise the employer’s costs by having to provide legally required workplace accommodations to sick or handicapped employees.  Therefore, the government should provide these social services, for they are necessary for the attainment or maintenance of these rights.  Indeed, the government has done so by creating welfare programs, such as food stamps and universal healthcare, as they are necessary means to secure these unalienable rights of life, liberty, property, and a meaningful pursuit of happiness.

Now, Romney seeks to undercut these efforts.  A government that neglects the needy also punishes its children.  Generally, the underprivileged lack sufficient means—i.e., money, health, higher education, experience, connections, etc.—to ensure that their children escape from inheriting poverty, thereby creating a self-perpetuating cycle of socioeconomic classism.  This “inherited poverty” cycle is vestigial of America’s once-endorsed discriminatory practices, such as slavery, Jim Crow laws, and segregated educational institutions.  This explains why minorities comprise most of the poor, unemployed, and homeless, face greater health risks, and are far poorer than Caucasian households. (Statistics available at http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v64n4/v64n4p1.html, among other websites.)  These individuals are thus victims of circumstance and not by choice.

The mentality argues from an economics perspective that the resulting benefits, if any, of welfare programs do not justify their costs.  However, economic theory demonstrates the opposite.  Welfare programs provide the means for the poor, homeless, and sick to gain entry into the workforce, which would allow them to provide for themselves instead of relying on begging or welfare programs.  Cutting taxes that support these programs would reinforce the inherited chains of poverty and maintain the unemployment that Romney purports he could lessen by this very policy.  This 47 percent mentality criticizes these services as short-term losses and socialistic when they should be viewed as long-term gains that actually further capitalism.

Although economic theory demonstrates a flaw in the mentality’s argument, the economic perspective is aligned with that of the 47 percent mentality.  Phrases like “human capital,” “workforce,” and “unemployment rate” objectify people as a factor of productivity and mere economic actors.  This trivializing view of human beings makes it easier to deny them of their self-evident, unalienable rights and their humanity.  This explains why economics alone is insufficient to justify welfare programs, which should not be viewed as solely intended to improve the economy; they are intended to provide people with entitlements so that they can enjoy their unalienable human rights, which are outlined in the Declaration and protected by the Constitution.  To deprive people of those things, which the “47 percent mentality” endorses, violates their inherent human value.