Nc Incident Investigation And Reporting Program: Fill & Download for Free

Initially the reports were very high of mass deaths and ethnic cleansing. However, it appears that the number of victims was far lower than anticipated.The final toll of civilians confirmed massacred by Yugoslav forces in Kosovo is likely to be under 3,000, far short of the numbers claimed by Nato governments during last year's controversial air strikes on Yugoslavia.As war crimes experts from Britain and other countries prepare to wind down the exhumation of hundreds of graves in Kosovo on behalf of the UN's International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the Hague, officials concede they have not borne out the worst wartime reports. These were given by refugees and repeated by western government spokesmen during the campaign. They talked of indiscriminate killings and as many as 100,000 civilians missing or taken out of refugee columns by the Serbs.The fact that far fewer Kosovo Albanians were massacred than suggested by Nato will raise sharp questions about the organisation's handling of the media and its information strategy.However, commentators yesterday stressed that the new details should not obscure the fact that the major war crime in the tribunal's indictment of the Yugoslav president, Slobodan Milosevic, and four other Serb officials is the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo and forced deportation of hundreds of thousands of people."The point is did we successfully pre-empt or not," Mark Laity, the acting Nato spokesman, said last night. "I think the evidence shows we did. We would rather be criticised for overestimating the numbers who died than for failing to pre-empt. Any objective analysis would say there was a clear crisis. There was indiscriminate killing. There were attempts to clear hundreds of thousands of people out of their homes."When Yugoslav forces withdrew from Kosovo in June last year, Nato spokesmen estimated that the Serbs had killed at least 10,000 civilians. While the bombing was under way William Cohen, the US defence secretary, announced that 100,000 Kosovo Albanian men of military age were missing after being taken from columns of families being deported to Albania and Macedonia. "They may have been murdered," he said. The fear was they might share the fate of the men who were separated from their wives and children and executed when Serb forces overran the town of Srebrenica in Bosnia.But while some 7,000 Bosnian Muslims died in the week-long Srebrenica massacre in 1995, less than 3,000 Kosovo Albanian murder victims have been discovered in the whole of Kosovo. "The final number of bodies uncovered will be less than 10,000 and probably more accurately determined as between two and three thousand," Paul Risley, the Hague tribunal's press spokesman, said yesterday.In three months of digging this summer, the tribunal's international forensic experts found 680 bodies at 150 sites. This was in addition to the 2,108 bodies found at 195 sites last year before exhumations were called off because of winter frosts. "By October we expect to have enough evidence to end the exhumations by foreign teams, and they will not be necessary next year," Mr Risley added.Although the tribunal has received reports of another 350 suspected grave sites, it believes the cost and effort of uncovering them would not be justified. Some suspicious mounds or patches of rough earth in fields where villagers reported a foul stench turned out to contain dead animals or to be empty.When the tribunal's teams reached Kosovo last summer, shortly after the international peacekeepers, they were given reports of 11,334 people in mass graves, but the results of its exhumations fall well short of that number. In a few cases, such as the Trepca mine where hundreds of bodies were alleged to have been flung down shafts or incinerated, they found nothing at all.The tribunal's indictment of President Milosevic includes the charge that during Nato's bombing campaign Serb police shot 105 ethnic Albanian men and boys near the village of Mala Krusa in western Kosovo. Witnesses claimed hay was piled on the bodies and set alight. Tribunal experts believe the remains may have been tampered with later, since the bones of only a few people were found.Motives questionedThe exhumation of less than 3,000 bodies is sure to add fuel to those who say Nato's intervention against Yugoslavia was not "humanitarian" and that it had other motives such as maintaining its credibility in a post-cold war world. Others say Nato's air strikes revealed a grotesque double standard since western governments did nothing when hundreds of thousands were being massacred in Rwanda.Carla del Ponte, the tribunal's chief prosecutor, told the UN security council: "Our task is not to prepare a complete list of war casualties. Our primary task is to gather evidence relevant to criminal charges."Evidence of the forced deportation of hundreds of thousands of people was overwhelming before the tribunal gained access to Kosovo but the exhumations are aimed at finding evidence for the charges of mass murder."Their benefit is to link forensic evidence to particular units of the police and army operating in particular parts of Kosovo. It wasn't a case of rogue units. The Serbian police state was fully involved," Mr Risley said. But officials will not say how many of the 2,788 bodies exhumed show clear signs of being victims of summary execution such as being shot in the head from close range.No Nato government has sought to produce a definitive total of murdered ethnic Albanian civilians since the Serb offensives began in March 1998, a year before the bombing. "No one is interested," complained a senior international official in Kosovo involved in helping victims' families. "Nato doesn't want to admit the damage wasn't as extensive as it said. Local Albanian politicians have the same motive. If you don't have the true figure, you can exploit the issue."[1]So we see there was no ethnic cleansing. And even if there was, why did the U.S. and NATO act here but not in Rwanda, knowing the atrocities there were the same or worse?Noam Chomsky tells us why:DM: Last month marked the seventh anniversary of the beginning of the bombing of Yugoslavia. Why did NATO wage that war or I should say why did the United States wage that war?NC: Actually, we have for the first time a very authoritative comment on that from the highest level of Clinton administration, which is something that one could have surmised before, but now it is asserted. This is from Strobe Talbott who was in charge of the…he ran the Pentagon/State Department intelligence Joint Committee on the diplomacy during the whole affair including the bombing, so that’s very top of Clinton administration; he just wrote the forward to a book by his Director of Communications, John Norris, and in the forward he says if you really want to understand what the thinking was of the top of Clinton administration this is the book you should read and take a look on John Norris’s book and what he says is that the real purpose of the war had nothing to do with concern for Kosovar Albanians. It was because Serbia was not carrying out the required social and economic reforms, meaning it was the last corner of Europe which had not subordinated itself to the US-run neoliberal programs, so therefore it had to be eliminated. That’s from the highest level.Again, we could have guessed it, but I’ve never seen it said before. That it wasn’t because of the Kosovo Albanians, that we know. And this is a point of religious fanaticism that the West can’t talk about for interesting reasons having to do with Western culture, but there is just overwhelming documentation, impeccable documentation. Two big compilations of the State Department trying to justify the war, the OSCE records, NATO records, KIM Monitor records, long British Parliamentary inquiry which led into it. They all showed the same thing – and sort of what we knew, I mean it was an ugly place, there were atrocities there.DM: Given this clear documentary record I want to ask you about the elite Intellectual opinion, what you call…NC: In the United States.DM: …in the United States and in the West in general, because reviewing it you would get the impression – you would be forgiven for imagining that every critic of the NATO intervention was one of two things: either a “Milosevic sympathizer” or someone who doesn’t care about genocide. What does this mean?NC: First of all that’s a common feature of intellectual culture. One good U.S. critic, Harold Rosenberg once described intellectuals as the “herd of independent minds.” They think they are very independent but they are a stampede in a herd, which is true; when there is a party line, you have to adhere to it and the party line is systematic. The party line is subordination to state power and to state violence. Now you are allowed to criticize it but on a very narrow grounds. You can criticize it because it is not working or for some mistake or benign intentions that went astray or something, like you see right now in Iraq war, the tone of debate about Iraq war but take a look at it – it’s very similar to the debate in PRAVDA during the invasion of Afghanistan. Actually I brought this up to a Polish reporter recently and I asked him if he had been reading PRAVDA. He just laughed and said yeah it’s the same. Now you read PRAVDA in the nineteen eighties, it’s you know: “the travail of the Russian soldiers that are going to get killed and now there are these terrorists who prevent us from bringing justice and peace to the Afghans, we of course did not invade them, we intervened and helped them at the request of the legitimate government, the terrorists are preventing us from doing all good the things we wanted to do etc.” I have read Japanese counter-insurgency documents from the second WW, from the ninety thirties – the same, you know: “…we tried to bring them an earthly paradise, but the Chinese bandits are preventing it …” in fact I don’t know of any exception in history. If you want, British imperialism is the same, I mean even people of the highest moral integrity like John Stewart Mill were talking about, well we have to intervene in India and conquer India because the barbarians can’t control themselves, there are atrocities, we are to bring them the benefits of the British rule and civilization and so on.Now in the United States it’s the same. Now take bombing of Kosovo; that was an incredibly important event for American intellectuals and the reason it had to do it all was for what was going on during nineties. And the nineties are for the West, not just the U.S. and France and England were the worst – probably the low point in intellectual history for the West, I think. I mean it was like a comic strip mimicking a satire of Stalinism, literally. You take a look at the New York Times or read the French press, the British press, there was all full of talk about how there is a “normative revolution” that has swept through the West, for the first time in history, a state namely the United States, “the leader of the free world” is acting from “pure altruism”, …Clinton’s policy has entered into a “noble phase,” with a “saintly glow” on and on, I am quoting from the liberals.DM: Now, this particular humanitarian sharade was…NC: That’s pre Kosovo.DM: Right. And it was specific in a sense because it was based on the claim that it was preventing genocide.NC: Now this is, see there are no examples yet.DM: Let me just read something that you said in an interview around the time of the bombing. You said that “the term “genocide” as applied to Kosovo is an insult to the victims of Hitler. In fact, it’s revisionist to an extreme.” What did you mean by that?NC: First of all let me just fix the timing. The things I’ve been quoting are from the late nineties.DM: Before Kosovo.NC: Yeah. Now, they needed some event to justify this massive self-adulation, OK? Along came Kosovo fortunately and so now they had to stop genocide. What was the genocide in Kosovo? We know from the Western documentation what it was. In the year prior to the bombing, according to Western sources about two thousand people were killed, the killings were distributed, a lot of them were coming in fact according to British government, which was the most hawkish element of the Alliance, up until January 1999 a majority of killings came from the KLA guerillas who were coming in as they said, you know, to try to incite a harsh Serbian response, which they got, in order to appeal to Western humanitarians to bomb. We know from the Western records that nothing changed between January and March, in fact up until March 20 they indicate nothing. March 20th they indicate an increase in KLA attacks. But, it was ugly but by international standards it was almost invisible unfortunately and it was very distributed. If the British are correct, the majority was coming from the KLA guerillas.DM: And as it later turned out the KLA was also receiving financial and military support.NC: They were being supported by CIA in those months. And to call that genocide, is really to insult the victims of the holocaust, you know, if that’s genocide than the whole world is covered with genocide.In fact it’s kind of striking; right at the same time the Western intellectuals were praising themselves for their magnificent humanitarianism, much worse atrocities were going on right across the border, in Turkey. That’s inside NATO, not at the borders of NATO… “how can we allow this on the borders of NATO,”… but how about inside NATO where Turkey was carrying, had driven probably several million Kurds out of their homes, destroyed about 3500 villages laid waste the whole place, every conceivable form of torture and massacre you can imagine, killed nobody knows how many people, we don’t count our victims, tens of thousands of people, how they were able to do that? The reason is because they were getting 80% of their arms from Clinton and as the atrocities increased, the arms flow increased. In fact in one single year, 1997, Clinton sent more arms to Turkey than the entire Cold War period combined! Up until the counter-insurgency.That was not reported in the West. You do not report your own crimes, that’s critical. And right in the midst of all of this, “how can we tolerate a couple of thousand people being killed in Kosovo, mixed guerillas and …” In fact the 50th Anniversary of NATO took place right in the middle of all of this. And there were lamentations about what was going on right across NATO’s border. Not a word about the much worse things going on inside NATO’s borders, thanks to the massive flow of arms from the United States. Now that’s only one case. Comparable things were going on all over where the U.S. were supportive of much worse, but this, you had to focus on this, that was the topic for “the herd of independent minds.” It played a crucial role in their self image because they had been going through a period of praising themselves for their magnificence in their “normative revolution” and their “noble phase” and so on and so forth, so it was a god-sent, and therefore you couldn’t ask any questions about it. Incidentally the same happened in the earlier phase of the Balkan wars. It was awful, and so on and so forth. However, but if you look at the coverage, for example there was one famous incident which has completely reshaped the Western opinion and that was the photograph of the thin man behind the barb-wire.DM: A fraudulent photograph, as it turned out.NC: You remember. The thin men behind the barb-wire so that was Auschwitz and ‘we can’t have Auschwitz again.’ The intellectuals went crazy and the French were posturing on television and the usual antics. Well, you know, it was investigated and carefully investigated. In fact it was investigated by the leading Western specialist on the topic, Philip Knightly, who is a highly respected media analyst and his specialty is photo journalism, probably the most famous Western and most respected Western analyst in this. He did a detailed analysis of it. And he determined that it was probably the reporters who were behind the barb-wire, and the place was ugly, but it was a refugee camp, I mean, people could leave if they wanted and, near the thin man was a fat man and so on, well and there was one tiny newspaper in England, probably three people, called LM which ran a critique of this, and the British (who haven’t a slightest concept of freedom of speech, that is a total fraud)…a major corporation, ITN, a big media corporation had publicized this, so the corporation sued the tiny newspaper for lible. Now the British lible laws were absolutely atrocious. The person accused has to prove that the, what he’s reporting is not done in malice and he can’t prove that. So and in fact when you have a huge corporation with batteries of lawyers and so on, carrying out a suit against the three people in the office, who probably don’t have the pocket-money, it’s obvious what is going to happen. Especially under these grotesque lible laws.So yes, they were able to prove the little newspaper…and couldn’t prove it wasn’t done out of malice, they were put out of business. There was just euphoria in the left liberal British press. You’ve read The Guardian and The Observer, they thought it was wonderful.DM: Mentioning The Guardian, what you describe is…NC: Sorry, incidentally…, after they put the newspaper out of business under this utterly grotesque legal case of the British laws, the left liberal newspapers, like The Guardian were just in a state of euphoria about this wonderful achievement. They had managed to destroy a tiny newspaper because it questioned some image that they had presented and they were very proud of themselves for it, which was probably misunderstood or misinterpreted.Well, Philip Knightly, he wrote a very harsh critique of the British media for behaving in this way, and tried to teach them an elementary lesson about freedom of speech. He also added that probably the photograph was misinterpreted. Couldn’t get published. Well, you know, that’s when Kosovo came along, it was the same thing. That you can not tell the truth about it, look I’ve gone through a ton of reporting on this, almost invariably they inverted the chronology. There were atrocities…DM: But after the bombing.NC: After the bombing. The way it’s presented is: the atrocities took place and then we had to bomb to prevent genocide, just inverted.DM: Let me ask you about the conduct of the actual war. You mentioned The Guardian, it’s interesting because you yourself had recently had an unpleasant experience…NC: Over this.DM: … when The Guardian misquoting you over Srebrenica. It misquoted you to make it appear as if you were questioning the Srebrenica massacre. But let me bring you back to the conduct of the actual war. That was another…NC: … the 1999 bombing.DM: The bombing, which was also overlooked or selectively covered by the Western media in general. Now, Amnesty International, among others, reported that “NATO committed serious violations of the rules of war during it’s campaign”, numerous human rights groups concur and document various war crimes. One of them had its anniversary two days ago, when the Radio Television Serbia was bombed, the national television, its headquarters, killing 16 people. First of all, why were these crimes completely unreported, and secondly, is there any prospects for there being any responsibility taken for these crimes?NC: I’d say the crimes were reported but they were cheered. It’s not that they were unknown, like the bombing of the radio station, yes, it was reported and the TV station, but it’s fine. Because the TV station was described as a propaganda outlet, so therefore it was right to bomb. That happens all the time. It just happened last year, in November 2004. One of the worst war crimes in Iraq…DM: Al Jazeera …NC: … was invasion of Falluja. Al Jazeera’s one thing, but there was worse. The invasion of Falluja was kind of similar to Srebrenica, if you look, but … They invaded Falluja; the first thing the invading troops did, U.S. troops, was to take over the general hospital and throw the patients on the floor, they were taken out their beds, put on the floor, hands tied on their backs, doctors thrown on the floor, hands on their backs, it was a picture of it in the front page of the The New York Times, they said it was wonderful.DM: The Geneva Convention forbids hospitals to be…NC: It’s a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions and George Bush should be facing the death penalty for that, even under the U.S. law. But it was presented, no mention of the Geneva Conventions, and it was presented as a wonderful thing, because the Falluja general hospital was a “propaganda center,” namely it was releasing casualty figures, so therefore it was correct to carry out a massive war crime.Well, the bombing of the TV station was presented the same way. In fact, as I’m sure you recall, there was an offer from NATO that they would not bomb if they agreed to broadcast six hours of NATO propaganda. Well, this is considered quite right.How can it be dealt with?A group of international lawyers did appeal to the International Tribunal on the Yugoslavia. They presented a brief, saying they should look into NATO war crimes, but what they cited was reports from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and admissions by the NATO command. That was what they presented, the…I am forgetting, but I think it was Karla Del Ponte at the time; she would not look at it, in violation of the laws of the Tribunal, because she “had faith in NATO.” And that was the answer.Well, something else interesting happened after that: Yugoslavia did bring the case to the War Court…DM: Which also rejected the case.NC: The Court accepted it and in fact deliberated for a couple of years it may still be, but what is interesting is that the U.S. excused itself from the case and the Court accepted the excuse. Why?Because Yugoslavia had mentioned the Genocide Convention and the U.S. did sign the Genocide Convention (after forty years), it ratified it, but it ratified it with reservation, saying “inapplicable to the United States”. So in other words, the United States is entitled to commit genocide, therefore and that was the case that the U.S. Justice Department of President Clinton’s brought to the World Court and the Court had to agree. If a country does not accept World Court jurisdiction, it has to be excluded, so the U.S. was excluded from the trial, on the grounds that it grants itself the right to commit genocide. Do you think this was reported here?DM: The World Court, though, excused itself from hearing the case trying the illegality of the war, on the grounds that Yugoslavia was not a full member of the United Nations at the time when the case was brought to the…NC: Maybe they’ve finally reached that…DM: …they finally did that…NC: …for several years they were deliberating but that’s the sequence, does any of this get reported? You can ask your friends at Princeton, ask the faculty. They don’t know. I mean these… any more than… they will know that, they sort of probably remember the bombing, the capture of the General Hospital in Falluja but, was there any comment saying that was a war crime?DM: What struck me was that you compared the Srebrenica massacre with the Falluja invasion, why is that?NC: Because there are similarities.DM: Like what?NC: In the case of Srebrenica women and children were trucked out and then came, you know, the massacre. In the case of Falluja, the women and children were ordered out, they weren’t trucked out, they were ordered out, but the men weren’t allowed to leave and then came the attack. In fact, it turned out that the roads out were blocked.Well, I mean all things, it’s not the same story, but that part is similar. I actually mentioned that a couple of times. Storms of protest hysteria, you know. Incidentally this Guardian affair – part of it which was totally fraud is on the part of the editors, not the reporter. They blamed it on the reporter, but it was the editors.One other thing that they were infuriated about was that she asked me what about the thin man behind the barb-wire, isn’t that a horrible atrocity? I said well, you know, it’s not certain that it was correct. OK, that led to the hysteria. That’s when Philip Knightly tried to intervene to present once again his analysis and once again his critique of the media, but couldn’t. He is a very prominent, prestigious person. You just cannot break ranks; that’s not tolerated. I mean, we are lucky, we do not have censorship, it’s free society, but the self-censorship is overwhelming. Actually, Orwell once wrote about this, in something that nobody has read. Everyone has read Animal Farm and almost nobody has read the introduction to Animal Farm…DM: Unpublished.NC: Unpublished, came out in his unpublished papers, thirty years later. In it what he said is, Animal Farm is a satire of this totalitarian state, he said free England is not very different. In free England unpopular ideas can be suppressed without the use of force and he gave examples. It’s very similar here. And it does not matter how extreme they are, I mean the Iraq invasion is a perfect example.There is not, you can not find anywhere in the main stream a suggestion that it is wrongful to invade another country. If you had invaded another country you have to pay reparations, you have to withdraw and the leadership has to be punished. I mean, and I don’t know if you have read the Nuremburg Judgments, but after the Nuremburg Judgments, Justice Jackson, Chief of Council of Prosecution of the U.S. Justice, made very, very eloquent statements about how we must…we are sentencing these people to death of the crimes for which they committed or crimes when anybody commits them, including when we commit them, we have to live up to that. He said “we are handing the defendants a poison chalice, and if we sipped from this chalice we must be treated the same way.” Can’t be more explicit!They also defined aggression. Aggression was defined in terms which just apply absolutely and without exception not only to the invasion of Iraq but to all sorts of other invasions, in Vietnam and many others, actually even terrorist war against Nicaragua, technically falls under the crime of aggression as defined in Nuremburg.DM: Does the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia?NC: Yes. And that’s not even questioned. In fact there is a, there was a so-called, an Independent Commission of Inquiry on the Kosovo bombing led by a very respected South African jurist – Justice Goldstone – and they concluded that the bombing was, in their words, “illegal but legitimate”. Illegal makes it a war crime. But they said it was legitimate because it was necessary to stop genocide. And then comes the usual inversion of the history.Actually, Justice Goldstone who was a respectable person, later recognized that the atrocities came after the bombing. And that they were furthermore the anticipated consequence, he did recognize that in a lecture in New York, couple of years ago, he said: “well, nevertheless we can take some comfort in the fact that Serbia was planning it anyway, and the proof for they were planning it is” guess what – “Operation Horse-Shoe”, – a probable intelligence fabrication that was publicized after the bombing, so even if it was true, it wouldn’t matter. And furthermore, even if that was true, it was a contingency plan. Now look, Israel has a contingency plans to drive all the Palestinians out of the West Bank if there is a conflict, so does that mean that Iran has the right to bomb Israel? Now, the U.S. has contingency plans to invade Canada, OK so does that mean that everybody has a right to bomb the United States?That’s the last straw of justification on the part of a respectable person. But for the “herd of independent minds” it just does not matter. The bombing was because of their “high values”, and their “nobility” and was to stop genocide. Say anything else, you know… tons of vilification and abuse comes. But it’s not just on this issue, it’s on every issue. So try to bring up the idea…take, say, the Vietnam War, a lot of time has passed, a huge amount of scholarship, tons of documentation, blew up the country…DM: Let me just interrupt, I’m sorry, we won’t have time to go into that…NC: OK.DM: I want to ask you about some of the present developments that are being used again to fabricate a lot of these issues. Slobodan Milosevic died last month. What is the significance of his death in your view?NC: Milosevic was, he committed many crimes, not a nice person, terrible person, but the charges against him would have never have held up. He was originally indicted on the Kosovo charges. The indictment was issued right in the middle of bombing which already nullifies it. It used British, it admittedly used British and the U.S. intelligence right in the middle of bombing, can’t possibly take it seriously. However if you look at the indictment, it was for crimes committed after the bombing. There was one exception: Racak. Let’s even grant that the claims are true, let’s put that aside. So, there was one exception, no evidence that he was involved or you know, it took place,But almost the entire indictment was for after the bombing. How are those charges going to stand up unless you put Bill Clinton and Tony Blair on the dock alongside? Then they realized that it was a weak case. So they added the early Balkan wars, OK? Lot of horrible things happened there. But the worst crime, the one that they were really going to charge him for that genocide was Srebrenica.Now, there is a little problem with that: namely there was an extensive, detailed inquiry into it by the Dutch Government, which was the responsible government, there were Dutch forces there, that’s a big, you know, hundreds of pages inquiry, and their conclusion is that Milosevic did not know anything about that, and that when it was discovered in Belgrade, they were horrified. Well, suppose that had entered into the testimony?DM: Does this mean that you are a “Milosevic sympathizer”?NC: No, he was terrible. In fact he should have been thrown out, in fact he probably would have been thrown out and in the early nineties if the Albanians had voted, it was pretty close. He did all sorts of terrible things but it wasn’t a totalitarian state, I mean, there were elections, there was the opposition, a lot of rotten things, but there are rotten things everywhere and I certainly wouldn’t want to have dinner with him or talk to him, and yes, he deserves to be tried for crimes, but this trial was never going to hold up, if it was even semi-honest. It was a farce; in fact they were lucky that he died.DM: In what sense?NC: Because they did not have to go through out the whole trial. Now they can, you can build up an image about how he would have been convicted as another Hitler.DM: Had he lived.NC: But now they don’t have to do it.DM: I just want to bring you back to the bombing of the RTS. Some have argued that this particular act of NATO’s in 1999 set precedants for targeting of media by the United States afterward – in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq – that it set a precedant for legitimizing media houses and labeling them as propaganda in order to bomb them in U.S. invasions. Do you make any connection there?NC: Well, I mean, the chronology is correct. But I don’t think they need excuses. The point is: you bomb anybody you want to. Let’s take 1998, so it was before. Now in 1998, here’s another thing you’re not allowed to say in the States and the West that leads to hysteria, but I’ll say it – in 1998 Clinton bombed the major pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan, OK? That was, this is the plant that’s using the most of the pharmaceuticals and veterinary medicines for poor African country that’s under embargo, can’t replace it. What’s that going to do? Obviously they killed unknown numbers of people, in fact the U.S. barred an investigation by the UN so we don’t know and of course you don’t want to investigate your own crimes, but there were some evidence. So the German Ambassador, who is a fellow at the Harvard University to Sudan wrote an article in Harvard International Review in which he estimated the casualties in the tens of thousands of deaths. The research of the Head of the Near East Foundation, a very respectable foundation, their regional director had field work in Somalia and in Sudan, he did the study, he came out with the same conclusions, probably tens of thousands of dead.Right after the bombing, within weeks, Human Rights Watch issued a warning that it was going to be a humanitarian catastrophe and gave examples of aid workers being pulled out from areas where people were dying and so on. You can not mention this. Any mention of this brings the same hysteria, as criticizing the bombing of the TV station. So it’s unmentionable, it is a Western crime and therefore it was legitimate.Let’s just suppose that Al Quaida blew up half the pharmaceutical supplies in the U.S., or England or Israel or any country in which people lived. Human beings, not ants, people. Fine. Can you imagine the reaction, we’d probably have a nuclear war, but when we do it to a poor African country – didn’t happen! Not discussed, in fact the only issue that is discussed if there is discussion is whether the intelligence was correct when it claimed that it was also producing chemical weapons. That is the only question. Mention anything else, the usual hysteria, and tirades…This is a very disciplined, Western intellectual culture is extremely disciplined. And rigid. You can not go beyond fixed bounds. It’s not, you know, it’s not censored, it’s all voluntary but it’s true and it’s not, incidentally, not free societies like this. In fact the third world countries are different.So take, say, Turkey, half third world; I mean in Turkey, the intellectuals, the leading intellectuals, now best known writers, academics, journalists, artists I mean they not only protest atrocities about the Kurdish massacre, they protest it constantly, but they were also constant in carrying out civil disobedience against them. I also participated with them sometimes. And they go publish banned writings which reported presented them to the Prosecutor’s Office, demand they were prosecuted. It’s not a joke, you know, facing… sometimes they are sent to prison, that’s no joke. There’s nothing like that in the West. Inconceivable.When I am in Western Europe I hear them telling me Turkey is not civilized enough to enter the European Union. I burst out laughing! It’s the other way round.DM: Speaking of democratic movements, there was a…[crew]: This is the last question.DM: OK, two more quick questions; one: you mentioned the democratic movements in various countries. There was of course a promising democratic movement in Serbia before and, of course, during the bombing. And people like Wesley Clark had claimed that this bombing would be of benefit to the anti-Milosevic forces, when it of course turned out to be a disaster. Was this a sincere evaluation on behalf of NATO?NC: Well, I can’t look into their minds. When you commit a crime it is extremely easy to find a justification for it. That’s true of personal life; it’s true of international affairs. So yes, maybe they believed it. I mean, I think there’s convincing evidence that the Japanese fascists believed that they were doing good when they carried out things in the Second World War. John Stewart Mill surely believed he was being honorable and noble when he was calling for the conquest of India right after some of the worst atrocities which I mentioned, you can easily believe you are noble. I mean, to me it’s obvious that it was going to harm the democratic movement, I heard about it and I couldn’t get much information but it was obvious that it was going to happen. I mean it is happening right now in Iran. There is a democratic movement in Iran, they are pleading with the United States not to maintain a harsh embargo, certainly not to attack, it is harming them, and it strengthens the most reactionary violent elements in the society, of course.DM: Let me ask you one final question about the future. Negotiations over Kosovo’s final status are under way right now, the United States is backing Agim Ceku, who was someone involved in ethnic cleansing not only in…NC: Not someone. He was a war criminal himself. What about the Krajina expulsion, which he was….DM: First of all, what do you see as an appropriate, realistic solution for the final status of Kosovo and how does that differ from what the United States is now promoting?NC: My feeling has been for a long time that the only realistic solution is one that in fact was offered by the President of Serbia I think back round 1993 [Chomsky is referring to the proposal of former Serbian President of Yugoslavia, Dobrica Cosic], namely some kind of partition, with the Serbian, by now very few Serbs left but the, what were the Serbian areas being part of Serbia and the rest be what they called “independent” which means it’ll join Albania. I just don’t see…I didn’t see any other feasible solution ten years ago.[2]Footnotes[1] Serb killings 'exaggerated' by west[2] Noam Chomsky interviewed by Danilo Mandic

I always promised myself I wouldn’t respond to these types of “dog whistle” questions….but I’m a dog, and this is a whistle….so what are you going to do?But in all seriousness, free speech should be fought for tooth and nail. We lose rights slowly, and once they are gone, we never get them back. Here is a list (using original sources, mind you, not commentaries) of concerning legislation and attacks on free speech.As a preliminary: I have not necessarily attributed these to “progressives,” but many of these appear to be due to “progressive laws” . In fact, I have pointed out that both Obama and Bill Maher have spoken out against these forms of free speech limitations. Whether you call them “Progressives” or not is up to the reader. Obviously, they cannot be the victim and perpetrator at the same time.“Progressive” is a vague word (Progressivism - Wikipedia ; Democrats Debate: What Is A Progressive And Who Wants To Be One?). Nonetheless, I am using this opportunity to show that, in fact, free speech is under attack everywhere.1. At the University of Oregon, no more free speech for professors on subjects such as race, religion, sexual orientation2. CPS public policy statement on the prosecution of offences involving hostility on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity (CPS = “Crown Prosecution Service”)specifically, “We have an agreed definition with the police for identifying and flagging cases involving hostility on the basis of sexual orientation and transgender identity. The joint definition is: Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on a person's sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity.”“In cases of stirring up hatred, we acknowledge that people have a right to freedom of speech. However, we will balance the rights of an individual to freedom of speech and expression against the duty of the state to act proportionately in the interests of public safety, to prevent disorder and crime, and to protect the rights of others.“Stirring up hatred in this context is committed when someone says or does something which is threatening, abusive or insulting and the person either intends to stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation, or makes it likely that such hatred will be stirred up. It covers behaviour such as making a speech, posting material online, displaying a poster, performing a play or broadcasting on the media.”3. European Commission and IT Companies announce Code of Conduct on illegal online hate speechspecifically, “remove or disable access to such content” (“such content” = what the EU defines as “hate speech”)“The information is to be channeled through the national contact points designated by the IT companies and the Member States respectively”all the while, “the European Commission also aim to continue their work in identifying and promoting independent counter-narratives”4. Rudd speech on foreign workers recorded as a hate incident5. Houston Pastors Find Themselves in City's CrosshairsResponse: Letter from Texas’ Attorney General to the Mayor, “Your office has demanded that several Houston pastors hand over to the city government many of their private papers, including their sermons. Whether you intend it to be so or not, your action is a direct assault on the religious liberty guaranteed by the First Amendment.”A copy of the subpoena is here.This caused a direct legislative response (which wouldn’t have happened otherwise): Abbott Signs "Pastor Protection Act" Into Law6. University's action over student who posted a swastika on a bulletin board sets off international debatenote that: “…the student…returned from India. He put the swastika on the bulletin board of his fraternity (Zeta Beta Tau, a historically Jewish fraternity), and another student saw it and reported the swastika to the university before getting an explanation. As officials investigated, the student…came forward and said that he had been hoping to have a conversation about the symbol and did not intend to offend anyone. He stressed that this was an Indian swastika, not a Nazi one. The student has told people that while in India, he became fascinated by the idea that a symbol that was not one of hate could become so defined by hate, and that he wanted to explore this issue.The student has been suspended and banned from campus and a hearing was held last week over his actions. He could face expulsion.Analysis from law scholar on the issue: George Washington University Investigates Swastika Postings As Possible Hate Crime5. Ex-film star Bardot gets fifth racism conviction6. Fashion's Galliano found guilty of making anti-Semitic comments7. Ex-soldier jailed for burning Koran in Carlisle - BBC News8. Man arrested for singing 'Kung Fu Fighting'9. Shopkeeper was quizzed for eight HOURS by police after Mandela jokes10. No hunting & shooting magazines for sale to under-14s11. French author in dock over Rwanda12. Defamation of religion and the United Nations - Wikipedia13. Girl, 15, arrested for 'burning Koran at school and posting footage on Facebook'14. Geert Wilders hate speech trial collapses in Netherlands15. Good comments from Obama on the “protest culture” situation in Interview with ABC:16. Obama:“sometimes there are folks on college campuses who are liberal, and maybe even agree with me on some issues, who sometimes aren’t listening to the other side, and that’s a problem, too….I’ve heard of some college campuses where they don’t wanna have a guest speaker who is, you know, too conservative. Or, they don’t want to read a book because it has language that is offensive to African Americans, or somehow sends a demeaning signal toward women. I gotta tell you, I don’t agree with that either.”“I don’t agree that you, when you become students at colleges, have to be coddled and protected from different points of view.”“When someone comes to speak to you that you disagree with, you should have an argument with them. But, you shouldn’t silence them by saying ‘you can’t come because I’m too sensitive to hear what you have to say’”17. NYT: Trigger Warnings on Literary Classics18. How Trigger Warnings Are Hurting Mental Health on Campus19. Racial climate at MU: A timeline of incidents this fall20. Free speech zones21. Letter to UNH President after Evicting a Student from Dormitories for a “Mean” Poster22. The Censorship of Stand-Up Comedy on College Campuses23. Erika Christakis leaves teaching role at Yale24. The Rise of Microaggression Reporting Systems, Cont'd25. Former MSU student sentenced for Yik Yak shooting “threat”26. This was published by The Wesleyan Argus: Why Black Lives Matter Isn’t What You ThinkA petition to boycott and defund the student paper was signed (including a demand for “Social Justice/Diversity” training—whatever that is)27. Change.org Petition | University of California Berkeley: Stop Bill Maher from speaking at UC Berkeley's December graduationHe spoke anyway:28. Demands to Dartmouth: Items for Transformative Justice:“We, the Concerned Asian, Black, Latin@, Native, Undocumented, Queer, and Differently-Abled students at Dartmouth College, seek to eradicate systems of oppression as they affect marginalized communities on this campus” —this is who the letter is fromUnder “Faculty and Staff”: “All professors will be required to be trained in not only cultural competency but also the importance of social justice in their day-to-day work.”“Ask staff/faculty to use students’ and employees’ preferred gender pronouns.”Under “Campus Climate”: “Create a policy with serious consequences against hate speech/crimes (e.g. Greek house expelled for racist parties).”“Create a policy banning the Indian mascot (e.g., turn away people from sporting events who are wearing Indian head shirts).”Under “Miscellaneous” demands: “Ban the use of “illegal aliens”, “illegal immigrants”, “wetback”, and any racially charged term on Dartmouth-sanctioned programming materials and locations.”In the conclusion of the document: “If the Dartmouth administration does not respond by the indicated time, those who believe in freedom will be forced to physical action.” (emphasis theirs, not mine).29. 40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities30. Papish v. Board of Curators 410 U.S. 667 (1973)31. Letter: Milo Yiannopoulos should not be allowed to speak on campus32. Court suspends NC State policy that bans Christians from evangelizing without permission33. Just got one example from Quora (Habib Fanny) itself: BNBR continued.

When I looked at your article, it seemed to have roughly equal numbers from both parties. So I wrote a quick program to count them up. You are correct that there are only 57 Democrats compared to 64 Republicans (all listed below).But I’m not convinced of your pattern. For one thing the list is not complete. For another, there’s a huge variation in charges. The first Republican entry, for example is 11 days in jail for DWI, while the first Democratic one is 3 and a half years in prison for bribery. I think a complete list, weighted for severity, would show about equal for both parties.I did a word count on the lists to get some crude idea of any differences between the parties. Here are the most common words excluding common English words that don’t convey much information, along with how often the words showed up for each party.Campaign violations seem equal, as does fraud. But Republicans seem much more likely to perjure and obstruct, while Democrats conspire. Republicans seems to get lighter penalties, more fines, jail, probation, resignation and suspended sentences; less prison and sentenced. Depending on your partisanship, you can assume Democrats commit worse crimes, or Republicans get lighter treatment from courts. There is a huge gender gap in federal crimes, but the Democrats are more equal than the Republicans.One surprise is only two from each party were pardoned, I had an idea that federal officials convicted of crimes had good chances of pardons. Also, four Democrats but no Republicans were re-elected.DemocratsAlbert Bustamante (D-Texas) was convicted of accepting bribes and sentenced to three and one-half years in prison. (1993) [69]Alcee Hastings (D), Federal District court judge impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate of soliciting a bribe (1989).[166] Subsequently, elected to the U.S. House of Representatives (1992)Andrew J. May (D-Kentucky) Convicted of accepting bribes in 1947 from a war munitions manufacturer. Was sentenced to 9 months in prison, after which he was pardoned by Truman (D) in 1952.[143]Anthony Weiner (D-NY)[3] was convicted of sending sexually explicit photos of himself to a 15-year-old girl and was made to sign the sexual offenders register. (2017)[4]Austin Murphy (D-PA) was convicted of one count of voter fraud for filling out absentee ballots for members of a nursing home. (1999) [55]Bertram Podell (D-New York), pleaded guilty to conspiracy and conflict of interest. He was fined $5,000 and served four months in prison. (1974)[123]Carl C. Perkins (D-Kentucky) pleaded guilty to a check kiting scheme involving several financial institutions (including the House Bank).[58]Carroll Hubbard (D-Kentucky) was convicted of illegally funneling money to his wife's 1992 campaign to succeed him in congress.[59]Chaka Fattah (D-PA) was convicted on 23 counts of racketeering, fraud, and other corruption charges. (2016)[10]Charles Diggs (D-Michigan), convicted on 29 charges of mail fraud and filing false payroll forms which formed a kickback scheme with his staff. Sentenced to 3 years (1978) [110]Cornelius Gallagher (D-New Jersey) pleaded guilty to tax evasion, and served two years in prison.[130]Corrine Brown (D-FL) was convicted on 18 felony counts of wire and tax fraud, conspiracy, lying to federal investigators, and other corruption charges. (2017)[5]Dan Flood (D-PA) censured for bribery. After a trial ended in a deadlocked jury, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a year's probation.[103][104]Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL) was convicted and sentenced to 18 months in prison, in 1995.[63]Daniel Brewster (D-Maryland) pleaded no contest to accepting "an unlawful gratuity without corrupt intent."[134]Darleen A. Druyun (D), Principal Deputy United States Under Secretary of the Air Force.[46] She pleaded guilty to inflating the price of contracts to favor her future employer, Boeing. In October 2004, she was sentenced to nine months in jail for corruption, fined $5,000, given three years of supervised release and 150 hours of community service.(2005).[47] CBS News called it "the biggest Pentagon scandal in 20 years" and said that she pleaded guilty to a felony.[48]Frank Ballance (D-NC) admitted to federal charges of money laundering and mail fraud in October 2005 and was sentenced to four years in prison. (2005)[40]Frank Boykin (D-Alabama) Was placed on probation and fined $40,000 following conviction in a case involving a conflict of interest and conspiracy to defraud the government. He was pardoned by President Lyndon Johnson in 1964.[137]Frank Brasco (D-New York) Sentenced to three months in jail and fined $10,000 for conspiracy to accept bribes from a reputed Mafia figure who sought truck leasing contracts from the Post Office and loans to buy trucks.[105]Frank M. Clark (D-Pennsylvania) pleaded guilty to mail fraud and tax evasion on June 12, 1979 and sentenced to two years in prison.[112]Frank Thompson (D-NJ) Sentenced to 3 years.[94]Frank W. Boykin (D-AL) was convicted of conspiracy and conflict of interest in July 1963.[135]Fred Richmond (D-New York) – Convicted of tax fraud and possession of marijuana. Served 9 months in prison. Charges of soliciting sex from a 16-year-old boy were dropped after he submitted to counseling. (1978) [109]Frederick W. Richmond (D-NY), Convicted of tax evasion and possession of marijuana. Served 9 months (1982) [102]Harrison A. Williams (D-NJ) Convicted on 9 counts of bribery and conspiracy. Sentenced to 3 years in prison.[89]Harry Claiborne (D), Federal District court Judge was tried and convicted of federal tax evasion; he served over one year in prison (1983). He was later impeached by the House, convicted by the Senate and removed from office (1986).[169]James M. Curley (D-Massachusetts) fined $1,000 and served six-months for fraud before Harry S. Truman commuted the rest of his sentence.[144]Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL) pleaded guilty February 20, 2013, to one count of wire and mail fraud in connection with his misuse of $750,000 in campaign funds. Jackson was sentenced to two and one-half years' imprisonment. (2013)[18]Jim Traficant (D-OH) was found guilty on ten felony counts of financial corruption, sentenced to eight years in prison and expelled from the House of Representatives. (2002) [42]Joe Kolter (D-Pennsylvania) pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy and sentenced to 6 months in prison.(1996)[64][65]John H. Hoeppel (D-CA) convicted in 1936 of selling an appointment to the West Point Military Academy. He was fined $1,000 and sentenced to 4–12 months in jail.[145]John Jenrette (D-SC) sentenced to two years in prison for bribery and conspiracy.[90]John M. Murphy (D-NY) Served 20 months of a 3-year sentence.[95]John V. Dowdy (D-Texas), Allegedly tried to stop a federal investigation of a construction firm. He served 6 months in prison for perjury. (1973) [121][122]Joshua Eilberg (D-PA) pleaded guilty to conflict-of-interest charges. In addition, he convinced president Carter to fire the U.S. Attorney investigating his case.[105]Laura Richardson (D-CA) was found guilty on seven counts of violating US House rules by improperly using her staff to campaign for her, destroying the evidence and tampering with witness testimony. The House Ethics Committee ordered Richardson to pay a fine of $10,000. (2012)[19][20]Lieutenant General Michael Flynn (D) National Security Advisor. Pled guilty to lying to the FBI. (2017)[1]Mario Biaggi (D-NY) Convicted of obstruction of justice and accepting illegal gratuities he was sentenced to 2½ years in prison and fined $500K. (1987)[97]Mary Rose Oakar (D-Ohio) pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor campaign finance charge not related to the House Bank.[60]Matthew Lyon (Democratic Republican-Kentucky). First Congressman to be recommended for censure after spitting on Roger Griswold (Federalist-Connecticut). The censure failed to pass.[158] Separately, found guilty of violating Alien and Sedition Acts and sentenced to four months in jail, during which time he was re-elected (1798) [159]Mel Reynolds (D-IL) was convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography. (1997) He was later convicted of 12 counts of bank fraud. (1999) Reynolds served his entire sentence stemming from the first conviction and served 42 months in prison for the bank fraud conviction at which point his sentence was commuted by President Bill Clinton.[49] As a result, Reynolds was released from prison and served his remaining time in a halfway house.[50][51]Michael Myers (D-PA) Accepted $50K saying, "...money talks and bullshit walks." Sentenced to 3 years and was expelled from the House.[93]Michael Myers (D-Pennsylvania) Received suspended six-month jail term after pleading no contest to disorderly conduct charged stemming from an incident at a Virginia bar in which he allegedly attacked a hotel security guard and a cashier.[111]Nicholas Mavroules (D-Massachusetts) was convicted of extortion, accepting illegal gifts and failing to report them on congressional disclosure and income tax forms. Mavroules pleaded guilty to fifteen counts in April 1993 and was sentenced to a fifteen-month prison term. (1993) [67][68]Raymond Lederer (D-PA) "I can give you me" he said after accepting $50K. Sentenced to 3 years.[92]Richard T. Hanna (D-CA), convicted in an influence-buying scandal. (1974)[124]Richard Tonry (D-Louisiana) pleaded guilty to receiving illegal campaign contributions.[113]Robert Frederick Collins (D), Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, was convicted of bribery and sentenced to six years, ten months. (1991)[167]Robert Garcia (D-NY) sentenced to 2½ years.[98]Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) US Senator, drove his car into the channel between Chappaquiddick Island and Martha's Vineyard, killing passenger Mary Jo Kopechne. Kennedy pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident and received a suspended sentence of two months (1969)[129]Thomas F. Johnson (D-Maryland) was convicted of conspiracy and conflict of interest regarding the receipt of illegal gratuities.[136]Thomas J. Lane (D-Massachusetts) convicted for evading taxes on his congressional income. Served 4 months in prison, but was re-elected three more times.[138] before his 1962 defeat due to re-districting. (1956) [139]Thomas Porteous (D), Federal Judge of the U.S. Eastern District of Louisiana was impeached, convicted and removed from office December 8, 2010, on charges of bribery and lying to Congress. (2010)[160][161]Wade Sanders (D), Deputy Assistant United States Secretary of the Navy, for Reserve Affairs, was sentenced to 37 months in prison on one charge of possession of child pornography. (2009)[43][44][45]Walter Fauntroy (D-District of Columbia) was convicted of filing false disclosure forms to hide unauthorized income.[61]Walter Nixon (D) Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi was impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate for perjury November 3, 1989.[168]William J. Jefferson (D-LA) was charged in August 2005 after the FBI seized $90,000 in cash from his home freezer. He was re-elected to the House in 2006, but lost in 2008. He was convicted November 13, 2009, of 11 counts of bribery and sentenced to 13 years in prison. (2009)[36] Jefferson's Chief of Staff Brett Pfeffer, was sentenced to 84 months for bribery. (2006) [37]RepublicansFrank Horton (New York politician) (R-NY) Pleaded guilty to Driving While Intoxicated (arrested at 105 mph) served 11 days jail(1976)[116][117]Albert Fall (R) Secretary of the Interior who was bribed by Harry F. Sinclair for control of the Teapot Dome federal oil reserves in Wyoming. He was the first U.S. cabinet member to ever be convicted; he served two years in prison. (1922) [150]Andrew J. Hinshaw (R-CA) US Representative was convicted of accepting bribes. He served one year in prison. (1977)[114][115]Bill Janklow (R-SD) was convicted of second-degree manslaughter for running a stop sign and killing a motorcyclist. Resigned from the House and given 100 days in the county jail and three years probation. (2003)[41]Bob Ney (R-OH) pleaded guilty to conspiracy and making false statements as a result of his receiving trips from Abramoff in exchange for legislative favors. Ney received 30 months in prison. (2007)[38]Bob Packwood (R-OR), 19 women accused him of sexual misconduct. He fought the allegations, but eventually, the US Senate Ethics Committee found him guilty of a "pattern of abuse of his position of power and authority” and recommended that he be expelled from the Senate. He resigned on Sept. 7, 1995.[52]Buz Lukens (R-Ohio) convicted of bribery and conspiracy.[57]Catalina Vasquez Villalpando, (R) Treasurer of the United States, pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice and tax evasion. (1992)[66]Charles Colson (R) Special Counsel to the President for Public Liaison, convicted of obstruction of justice. Served 7 months.Claude Allen (R) Director of the Domestic Policy Council, was arrested for a series of felony thefts in retail stores. (2006) He was convicted on one count and resigned soon after.[35]David Durenberger Senator (R-Minnesota) denounced by Senate for unethical financial transactions and then disbarred (1990). He pleaded guilty to misuse of public funds and given one year probation (1995) [70]David Safavian (R) Administrator for the Office of Management and Budget[27] where he set purchasing policy for the entire government.[28][29] He was found guilty of blocking justice and lying,[30] and sentenced to 18 months. (2008)[31][32]Dennis Hastert (R-IL) Speaker of the United States House of Representatives pleaded guilty in court for illegally structuring bank transactions related to payment of $3.5 million to quash allegations of sexual misconduct with a student when he was a high school teacher and coach decades ago.[11] (2016)Duke Cunningham (R-CA) pleaded guilty November 28, 2005, to charges of conspiracy to commit bribery, mail fraud, wire fraud and tax evasion in what came to be called the Cunningham scandal and was sentenced to over eight years in prison. (2005)[39]Dwight Chapin (R) Secretary to the President of the United States, convicted of perjury.Earl Butz (R) United States Secretary of Agriculture. He was charged with failing to report more than $148,000 in 1978. Butz pleaded guilty to the tax evasion charge and was sentenced to 30 days in jail and five years of probation and was ordered to make restitution. He served 25 days behind bars before his release.[118][119]Edwin Reinecke (R-CA) convicted of perjury and sentenced to 18 months in prison as part of the Watergate investigation.Egil Krogh (R) United States Undersecretary of Transportation, sentenced to six months.Elliott Abrams (R) Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, convicted of withholding evidence. Given 2 years probation. Later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush.[86]Ernest K. Bramblett (R-California) Received a suspended sentence and a $5,000 fine in 1955 for making false statements in connection with payroll padding and kickbacks from congressional employees.[140]General David Petraeus (R)[8] Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. On April 23, 2015, a federal judge sentenced Petraeus to two years’ probation plus a fine of $100,000 for providing classified information to Lieutenant Colonel Paula Broadwell.(2015)[9]George V. Hansen (R-ID) censured for failing to fill out disclosure forms. Spent 15 months in prison.[101]George V. Hansen (R-ID) US Representative, first member of Congress to be convicted of violating a new 1971 campaign law requiring disclosure of financial contributions(1974)[132][133]Greg Gianforte (R-MT) pled guilty to charge of assault. (2017)[6][7]H. R. Haldeman (R) White House Chief of Staff, convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury. Served 18 months in prison.Harry E. Rowbottom, (R-IN) was convicted in Federal court of accepting bribes from persons who sought post office appointments. He served one year in Leavenworth.(1931)[147]Henry B. Cassel (R-Pennsylvania) was convicted of fraud related to the construction of the Pennsylvania State Capitol (1909).[153][154]J. Herbert Burke (R-FL) pleaded guilty to disorderly intoxication, resisting arrest, and nolo contendere to an additional charge of witness tampering. He was sentenced to three months plus fines.(1978)[108]J. Irving Whalley (R-Pennsylvania) Received suspended three-year sentence and fined $11,000 in 1973 for using mails to deposit staff salary kickbacks and threatening an employee to prevent her from giving information to the FBI.[105]J. Parnell Thomas (R-New Jersey): a member of the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC), was convicted of salary fraud and given an 18-month sentence and a fine, resigning from Congress in 1950. He was imprisoned in Danbury Prison with two of the Hollywood Ten he had helped put there. After serving his 18 months he was pardoned by Truman (D) in 1952.[142]James F. Hastings (R-New York), convicted of kickbacks and mail fraud, he also took money from his employees for personal use. Served 14 months at Allenwood penitentiary. (1976) [120]James Fred Hastings (R-NY) Resigned on January 20, 1976 after being convicted of kickbacks and mail fraud. He served 14 months at Allenwood penitentiary (1976).[120]James G. Watt (R) United States Secretary of the Interior 1981–1983, was charged with 25 counts of perjury and obstruction of justice. Sentenced to five years probation, fined $5,000 and 500 hours of community service[84]Jay Kim (R-CA) accepted $250,000 in illegal 1992 campaign contributions and was sentenced to two months house arrest. (1992)[71][72][73][74]John Dean (R) White House Counsel, convicted of obstruction of justice, later reduced to felony offenses and served 4 months.John Ehrlichman (R) former White House Counsel, convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury. Served 18 months in prison.John Hicklin Hall (R) US District Attorney for Oregon appointed by President McKinley, convicted of not prosecuting suspects and then blackmailing them later during the Oregon land fraud scandal(1903)[157][81]John Hipple Mitchell Senator (R-Oregon) was involved with the Oregon land fraud scandal, for which he was indicted and convicted while a sitting U.S. Senator. (1905) [155]John N. Mitchell (R) former United States Attorney General, convicted of perjury.[126]John W. Langley (R-KY) Resigned from the US Congress in January 1926, after losing an appeal to set aside his conviction of violating the Volstead Act (Prohibition). He had also been caught trying to bribe a Prohibition officer. He was sentenced to two years, after which his wife Katherine G. Langley ran for Congress in his place and won two full terms.[148][149]Jon Hinson (R-MS) was arrested for having homosexual oral sex in the House of Representatives’ bathroom with a government staffer. Hinson, who was married, later received a 30-day jail sentence, and a year's probation, on condition that he get counseling and treatment. At the time, homosexual acts were criminalized, even between consenting adults. He then resigned his seat and began working as a gay rights advocate.(1981) [106][107]Joseph R. Burton Senator (R-Kansas) was convicted of accepting a $2500 bribe in 1904.[156]Lester Crawford (R) Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, resigned after 2 months. Pleaded guilty to conflict of interest and received 3 years suspended sentence and fined $90,000. (2006) [34]Lewis Libby (R) Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney (R). 'Scooter' was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in the Plame Affair on March 6, 2007 and was sentenced to 30 months in prison and fined $250,000. His sentence was commuted by George W. Bush (R) on July 1, 2007. (2007)[33]Mark E. Fuller (R) U.S. District Judge was found guilty of domestic violence and sentenced to 24 weeks of family and domestic training and forced to resign his position. (2015)[21][22][23]Martin B. McKneally (R-New York) Placed on one-year probation and fined $5,000 in 1971 for failing to file income tax return. He had not paid taxes for many years prior.[131]Maurice Stans (R) United States Secretary of Commerce, pleaded guilty to three counts of violating the reporting sections of the Federal Election Campaign Act and two counts of accepting illegal campaign contributions and was fined $5,000.(1975)[128]Michael Deaver (R) White House Deputy Chief of Staff to Ronald Reagan 1981–85, pleaded guilty to perjury related to lobbying activities and was sentenced to 3 years probation and fined $100,000 [87]Michael Grimm (R-NY) pleaded guilty of felony tax evasion. This was the fourth count in a 20-count indictment brought against him for improper use of campaign funds. The guilty plea had a maximum sentence of three years; he was sentenced to eight months in prison. (2015)[12][13]Michael J. Hogan (R-NY) was convicted of bribery and sentenced to a year and a day in a Federal Penitentiary.(1935)[146]Pat Swindall (R-GA) convicted of 6 counts of perjury. (1989) [99][100]Richard Kelly (R-FL) Accepted $25K and then claimed he was conducting his own investigation into corruption. Served 13 months.[91]Richard Kleindienst (R) United States Attorney General, convicted of "refusing to answer questions" given one month in jail.Rick Renzi (R-AZ) was found guilty on 17 of 32 counts against him June 12, 2013, including wire fraud, conspiracy, extortion, racketeering, money laundering and making false statements to insurance regulators. (2013)[17]Robert Archbald (R) U.S. Commerce Court Judge of Pennsylvania, was convicted of corruption in 1912.[152]Samuel B. Kent (R), Federal District Judge of the Galveston Division of the U.S. Southern District of Texas, was sentenced May 11, 2009, to 33 months in prison for having lied about sexually harassing two female employees. (2009) [165]Scott Bloch (R) United States Special Counsel. pleaded guilty to criminal contempt of Congress for "willfully and unlawfully withholding pertinent information from a House Committee investigating his decision to have several government computers wiped ..."[24][25] On June 24, 2013, U. S. District Judge Robert L. Wilkins sentenced Bloch to one day in jail and two years' probation, and also ordered him to pay a $5000 fine and perform 200 hours of community service.(2010) [26]Senior Federal U.S. District Court Judge Jack Camp (R) was arrested in an undercover drug bust while trying to purchase cocaine from an FBI agent. Judge Jack T. Camp resigned his position after pleading guilty to three criminal charges. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail, 400 community service hours and fined. (2010)[162][163][164]Spiro Agnew (R) Former Vice President of the United States, convicted of income-tax evasion.[127]Steve Stockman (R-TX) was convicted of fraud. (2018)[2]Trey Radel (R-FL) was convicted of possession of cocaine in November 2013. As a first-time offender, he was sentenced to one year probation and fined $250. Radel announced he would take a leave of absence, but did not resign. Later, under pressure from a number of Republican leaders, he announced through a spokesperson that he would resign. (2013)[14][15][16]Walter E. Brehm (R-Ohio) convicted of accepting contributions illegally from one of his employees. Received a 15-month suspended sentence and a $5,000 fine.[141]Wes Cooley (R-OR), was convicted of having lied on the 1994 voter information pamphlet about his service in the Army. He was fined and sentenced to two years probation (1997)[53] After leaving office, Cooley was convicted of income tax fraud connected to an investment scheme. He was sentenced to one year in prison and to pay restitution of $3.5 million to investors and $138,000 to the IRS.[54]William Lorimer Senator (R-IL), The 'blond boss of Chicago' was found guilty of accepting bribes in 1912.[151]