Deconstructing The Associated Press

apThe trade of journalism is facing trouble on all sides these days, mostly because its source of funding — primarily advertising — is going elsewhere. This squeeze is bringing out the worst in people who we used to believe dedicated themselves to the pursuit of truth. Not so today. It’s simply easier to embrace biased narratives than pursue facts, and nowhere is this more evident than in the Middle East, where truth takes a whole lot of work.

But difficulty is simply an excuse, for if I can spot this stuff from my office in Alabama, it ought to be obvious to those still involved in the trade. With that in mind, I need to deconstruct (that tool of the postmodernist) a story by the Associated Press published yesterday that functions as a press release from the Israeli office of information. Oh, there’s a smattering of an opposing point-of-view, but the overall content, writing, and presentation represent the pro-Israel perspective.

The piece is structured in five chunks, so that’s the way I’ll present it here. My commentary will follow each “chunk.”

No end in sight for latest Israeli-Palestinian violence, raising fears of uprising

JERUSALEM – For nearly a month, Israel has been dealing with a wave of Palestinian unrest that shows no signs of stopping. Beginning with clashes at a sensitive Jerusalem holy site, the violence has spread throughout the city, across Israel and into the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Since the Jewish New Year last month, five Israelis have been killed in a shooting, a stoning and a series of stabbings. At least 26 Palestinians been killed by Israeli fire, including 10 identified by Israel as attackers and the rest in clashes between stone-throwers and Israeli troops. Hundreds of Palestinians have been wounded in such confrontations.

The violence comes at a time when prospects for negotiating an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict appear nil.

While Israelis are on edge over the random nature of the current wave of attacks, many Palestinians feel hopeless because all paths to statehood and ending nearly half a century of Israeli occupation appear blocked.

The long-running diplomatic deadlock coupled with the current violence has raised fears that the region is on the cusp of a major new round of Israeli-Palestinian fighting.

Anyone schooled in the practice of propaganda knows that how the message is framed determines where you can go with it. Here, the first paragraph frames the whole piece by announcing that what’s happening is a “wave of Palestinian unrest.” Those darned Palestinians, right? If they’d just stop it, everything would be fine. Moreover, the writer explains that this began in Jerusalem and expanded outward, even reaching the West Bank and Gaza strip.

This is entirely false. The “unrest” is a response to Israeli terror, last year in Gaza and this year in the West Bank, where a family, including a sleeping baby, were killed in a firebombing by Israeli settlers who operate as an armed militia with impunity in the occupied territories.  Then there are extrajudicial executions by the IDF that have become commonplace, the latest being an 18-year old girl at a West Bank checkpoint.

Let’s also make clear here that this “unrest” involves mostly stone-throwers and an occasional stabbing, whereas the full military might of the government is used daily against Palestinians.


Clashes broke out at Jerusalem’s most sensitive holy site over the Jewish New Year, fueled by rumors that Israel was secretly plotting to take over the spot.

The compound is revered by Jews as the Temple Mount, home to the biblical Jewish Temples. Today it houses the Al-Aqsa Mosque, Islam’s third-holiest site.

Israel captured the site from Jordan in the 1967 Mideast war, but it remained under Muslim administration. Under a decades-old arrangement, non-Muslims are allowed to visit, but not pray there.

A growing number of Jewish visitors in recent years, coupled with calls by religious Jewish activists for a greater presence at the site, have stoked Palestinian fears that Israel is planning to change this arrangement.

Palestinians fiercely defend the site as both a religious and national symbol. Growing Palestinian fears that the shrine is in danger triggered unrest across the region.

Israel has repeatedly said it is committed to the status quo and has accused Palestinian and Muslim religious leaders of inciting violence.

Two things. One, the presentation of this as being started by a “rumor” is absurd on its face, although it fits the Israeli narrative that Palestinians are psychotic. There’s nothing new here, because Israel has always “wanted” all of Jerusalem. What did happen this year was that Israeli security forces aggressively stormed the mosque prior to the Jewish New Year in order to make it safer for Jews to visit the site. Firing stun grenades and rubber coated bullets, many Muslims were injured, and the Palestinians responded. Each year it appears to get worse. This year, Arab men under the age of 50 were forbidden from entering the Mosque.

Moreover, this mess didn’t “start” in Jerusalem. It’s been ongoing, and the current atmosphere was created by Israeli actions in the West Bank. One simply cannot understand the situation without accepting this knowledge, for to do otherwise is to utterly embrace the Israeli narrative in the region.


While some Israeli commentators have begun to call the unrest a new intifada, or uprising, it is premature to say so.

The violence has some things in common with the second Palestinian uprising. In 2000, a visit to the hilltop religious site by Israel’s then opposition leader, Ariel Sharon, helped trigger what turned into an uprising.

Some argue that Palestinian anger over living under Israeli military occupation for nearly 50 years, the collapse of peace efforts and the lack of hope for gaining independence has made the region ripe for a new bout of violence.

Still, there are key differences. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has been an outspoken opponent of violence and has maintained security coördination with Israel to prevent the clashes from spinning out of control.

During the previous intifada, organized Palestinian militant groups were behind much of the violence, often with tacit support from their leaders. Most of those groups have been disbanded or their members jailed. The recent stabbings have been carried out by individuals with no known political affiliation acting on their own.

These “lone-wolf” attacks have made it hard for Israel to find a military solution to the unrest, or to predict how long it will continue.

Firstly, the “uprising,” if there is one, is a Palestinian response to the apartheid state within which they live and the escalating violent actions by the IDF in maintaining the status quo, which, again, includes permitting bands of armed Israelis who simply attack (and kill) whoever they like and for whatever reason in the occupied territories. These acts are carried out with absolute impunity.

The “collapse” of peace initiatives is tied to recent statements by the prime minister and defense minister that there will never be a two-state solution in the region. Hopeless? Well, I guess so.

Oh, and let’s leave the Palestinian “leaders” out of this entirely. The idea that any one person or group speaks on behalf of or “for” the oppressed is a straw man used entirely for propaganda purposes. This is entirely a grass roots response to actual Israeli behavior, which can only lead one to the conclusion that Israel does NOT want peace with them.


The stabbings have caused widespread panic in Israel, prompting Jerusalem’s mayor and other politicians to encourage licensed gun owners to carry their weapons.

Israeli leaders say the country’s large number of well-trained military veterans provides an extra layer of security. And after several stabbings, assailants have been quickly shot by either police or armed civilians. But critics say such talk only increases tensions, raising the risk that over-eager gun owners or troops will shoot to kill, even when unnecessary.

In one case caught on video, a young Palestinian man wanted in a stabbing was gunned down by a police officer as an angry crowd screamed for him to be shot. In the video, it is not clear whether the youth was armed, and the police car was far away from him, raising the question of whether the youth could have been subdued without being killed.

The “widespread panic” is a response to how this is portrayed in the Israeli media, especially television, because isolated incidents in various places that are then strung together to support a narrative can be and usually are terribly misleading.

The last paragraph points to just one of the many incidents that Palestinians are using to plead the case of Israeli aggression. The boy (not a man) was running TOWARDS police and away from the Israeli mob. Only in Israel — and against Palestinians — is it acceptable to shoot first, ask questions later, and not be held accountable for it. “Wanted in a stabbing” is not justification for extrajudicial execution. Or is it?

Finally, the headline of this section is right out of the Hasbara playbook. Read it. “How has Israel responded?” Again, the narrative being presented is that innocent Israel is, once again, being forced to defend itself against those who would do it harm. If anything, this is a Palestinian response, but that is completely disregarded in a blatant attempt to present the Israeli narrative as “news.”


Both Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could play key roles in ending the unrest, though both have been limited by external pressure.

Netanyahu is under heavy pressure from the public, and hard-liners in his coalition, to take even tougher action. In addition to his tough rhetoric, the Israeli leader has already beefed up the level of forces in Jerusalem and the West Bank, and loosened the rules on when troops can open fire at protesters.

Yet a severe crackdown risks triggering even more violence and international condemnation. For this reason, he has also taken steps to ease tensions, such as banning lawmakers from visiting the Jerusalem holy site.

Abbas is also interested in restoring quiet. But after years of stalled statehood negotiations — paralysis he blames on Netanyahu’s hard-line approach — he is deeply unpopular. Containing the violence and openly continuing the security coöperation with Israel risks promoting the image that he is weak and ineffective.

In any case, it remains unclear how much control either man has when the violence is emanating from the ground up, carried out by angry teenagers who have little hope for the future.

By presenting this as “Abbas versus Netanyahu,” the Associated Press takes us down a well-worn path that leads to nowhere. Netanyahu could conceivably stop this, but why should he? He was just re-elected by, among other things, scaring voters with last-minute panicky statements that “the Arabs” were voting in droves. He believes he operates with the complete support of Israeli citizens, and there’s nothing to indicate otherwise. Abbas has no power among Palestinians and certainly none with Israel.

Netanyahu is exploiting the response of the “occupied” population to Israeli violence by shoving more violence down their throats in order to maintain control. Sadly, the press — led by articles like this from The Associated Press, and especially the work of the New York Times — is assisting him in getting away with it.

If you believe, as some do, that conqueror Israel has the right to write its own history, then I hope you enjoy your bath in the tarpits. In a networked world, one-sided views of history can’t stand up to scrutiny, because horizontal communications allow us access to the very ground floor that is rising up in the occupied territories.

This will not end well for either “side” unless and until the world intervenes.

I’m not holding my breath.

Re-writing history by erasure

Media in the U.S. is more often than not the servant of special interests, even though professional journalists would scoff at the idea as absurd. Unfortunately, the truth is that it’s been this way since the early 20th Century and the Presidency of Woodrow Wilson. I’ve written extensively about the Creel Committee and its manipulation of information about World War I and especially the later work of its members, Walter Lippmann and his friend Edward Bernays. The only way to overcome this and set the historical record right is to participate in the postmodern practice of deconstructionism. The problem is rarely one of the facts but almost always of the narrative or grand narrative that comes from selecting certain facts and dismissing others.

Journalism in the future — it is certainly my hope — will embrace active deconstructionism to separate truth from self-serving narratives. It simply has no choice in a networked world. That’s because people can talk to each other without filters. Truth in mass media is often obscured for the sake of populism and nationalism, and we have a great example of this underway currently in the Middle East.

Zionism is a very real attempt to eliminate certain portions of history in order to establish a direct connection between modern day Israel and the historical record of the Old Testament in the Bible. There are regional political and economic reasons for so doing, and I get that. However, we don’t need to sit back as a culture and look aside as crimes are being committed in the process, no matter how righteous our intentions. The truth is there isn’t a direct connection between contemporary Israel and the Israel of the Bible, and attempts to make that connection by eliminating everything between are entirely self-serving. We must not only be concerned with what’s happening today, but what will happen tomorrow, if such a connection becomes a part of the grand narrative of world history.

mamillaMondoweiss, a publication that searches for verifiable truth in the region, today published the words of Sergio Yahni, an Israeli journalist and coördinator of the Palestinian-Israeli organization, the Alternative Information Center. The article expresses concerns about the necessities of Zionists to establish Jerusalem as entirely a Jewish city, despite prior agreements to keep it multi-cultural. The article specifically references an important Islamic cemetery.

“They are commercializing the city, selling it as a modern Jewish city, but at the same time as an ancient one. The mayor, Nir Barkat, wants to sell Jerusalem to the world as an opulent tourist attraction, because of this, he is transforming its character and the nature…”

“To reach this goal, it’s erasing the Islamic history and tradition of the city. Jerusalem is built on multiple layers, a unique stage of history, but the municipality is working hard to simplify it. How? Erasing the Islamic layer in order to replace it with the Roman and the Jewish ones…”

“The scientific archeology was replaced by the ideological archeology: all the Israeli work in this field is based on the Bible and the Old Testament, trying to demonstrate their narrative, and obviously, in this context, there is no space for the Islamic and Arab tradition. Let’s take the example of the Moroccan Quarter, in the Old City, just beside the Wailing Wall: it was built in the 12th century and it was destroyed after 1967 because it was contradicting the Zionist narrative. The same thing is happening in Silwan with the City of David and in Mamilla: the archeology is a tool to justify a personal and self-interested narrative, erasing the real one”.

I realize a lot of people simply say “so what? After all, Israel won the war, so let them do what they want.” The problem is very simply this: The prophecy that both Jews and Evangelical Christians use to justify this (Ezekiel 36:24–36) must be edited in order to apply it to contemporary Israel, for the text concerns God scattering the Jews for their misbehavior regarding the covenant God had established with them. The verses describe God’s great mercy in cleansing them and bringing them home. So one is free to ask the only pertinent question in light of the prophecy: is the nation of Israel’s behavior righteous or is it not? Are the people living in accordance with the laws and sacrifices ascribed to them as the people of God?

Even an idiot could answer that question correctly, unless they’re only given a tilted form of truth.

If Zionism is allowed to get away with this ruse, we will all bear the global consequences of a country, armed to the teeth, doing whatever they please in the name of God.

It’s enough to make you wonder who are the real good guys and bad guys in what we see unfolding day in and day out in the Middle East.

Thou shalt not bear false witness!

People wonder why I come off as angry, especially a certain crowd on Facebook. Well, let me be blunt. The world is so swimming in the muck of lies and distortion that we’re all drowning in our own bullshit. If you dare, take a look at this. It was posted on Facebook by a prominent Christian author, speaker and radio show host, Dr. Michael Brown. As of this writing, it’s been shared by over 2,100 fans. The comments are a long stream of attaboys, backslapping, and “thank you for the truth” accolades. The problem is it’s all crap.


The problem here is that this isn’t a photo of some random gathering of Muslim women! Who knew, right? I mean, it fits the message so beautifully that I’m surprised Bill Maher hasn’t used it already. I did a Tineye search of that image and discovered that the copyright is owned by a photographer named Scott Nelson, who writes this in his description:

BAGHDAD,IRAQ-APRIL 03: Female members of the al-Mehdi Army march in Military formation during an April 03, 2004 military parade through the streets of the Sadr City neighborhood in east Baghdad, Iraq. The Al-Mehdi Army is a Shia militia aligned with controversial Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr, and the parade was meant to be a show of force in tandem with Sadr supporters’ continued protest against the occupation of Iraq by the U.S. lead coalition forces.

Wait, what? Their faces are covered for good reason? This was a Shi’a (Iranian roots) militia marching in a public parade in Baghdad after we took over their country. In his keywords, Nelson used military and war terms and was careful not to use the word “burka,” Muslim women, oppression,or anything else inflammatory. It is in no way representative of women without political rights. It’s a con job and one that is designed to inspire fear.

Yet the picture has been used in the Dr. Michael Brown context 80 times since. His clever poster is just the latest.

And so I ask, where is journalism in any of this? Why is Snopes the only website dedicated to sniffing out these frauds? Culture is being torn apart by lies, and our only worry is who’s going to pay for “journalism” in the future.

Shame on us!

And the insanity continues

All American Muslim logoWhile not surprised, I’m deeply saddened and angry this morning about two dimensions of the same evil being perpetuated in the name of God in the U.S. Both mask the ugly underbelly of the Evangelical Christian church in America, where good intentions (I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt) produce very unChristlike behavior.

The first is the belief that Mormonism is a cult and that Mitt Romney — simply because he’s a Mormon — isn’t fit to be President of the United States. As a guy who used to be in the thick of this activist and evangelical stuff, I can testify with certainty that this IS the belief of the Christian right. Newt is a good guy and Mitt is an evil guy, because, well, he’s part of that *gestures with elbow* cult. This is a pathetic and self-serving myth that perpetuates the mockery of all people of faith and further alienates the right from the mainstream. Ironically, this is precisely where they want to be, because a persecuted faithful is a literal promise of the Bible, from their perspective. What bothers me most here is that Christian leaders don’t speak out against this, and so it is beamed abroad as representative of Christianity in the U.S.

The second issue that’s really bugging me is the treatment of a bridge-building television program on The Learning Channel — All American Muslim — by these same Evangelical Christians. I’ll spare a rant on the details, because you’re already aware of them, except to say that this Florida Family Association speaks only for a highly ignorant, hateful and bigoted fringe, and yet — due to the same silence from Christian leadership — it, too, is beamed abroad as representative of the whole. By remaining silent, all of us give up the right to criticize Islamic leaders for not speaking out against those who use terror and murder to preach their own form of hatred and bigotry.

To my beloved Muslim family in Jordan, forgive us for not speaking out. This is NOT the stuff of everyday Americans. It is the rantings of lunatics who exploit fear in the name of self-promotion through a media system that feeds on controversy. It is also demonstrative of the impotence of a once-proud religion that is so divided that it allows lame self-promoters an unchallenged platform to preach their own self-righteousness and their hated for the rest of the human race. May God have mercy on their souls.

Al Jazeera: a glimpse of journalism’s future

UPDATE: I have corrected this piece to reference the work of Al Jazeera anchor Folly Bah Thibault, mistakenly identified as Lauren Taylor earlier. I apologize for this, due primarily because Al Jazeera does not emphasize the names of its anchors, concentrating instead on the content of their presentation.)

Like most of you, I first heard of Al Jazeera in the late 90s, when it was presented to the U.S. as an Arabic propaganda machine. After September 11th, 2001, the Bush administration vilified Al Jazeera as anti-American, and its reputation in the Middle East as shining a needed light on Arab suffering made it a voice that often conflicted with U.S. interests in the region. One remarkable thing about Al Jazeera is that for many years, it has made its material available to other media outlets through a “Creative Commons” copyright license, which is the opposite of how traditional media companies in the U.S. behave.

Today, thanks to its dynamic and aggressive coverage of the popular protests in Egypt, Al Jazeera English has become THE go-to media source for the world. The demand is putting pressure on cable operators in the U.S. to carry the channel, and the Los Angeles Times is suggesting that might happen.

The network’s on-the-ground reports from Cairo — as well as its confrontations with Egyptian authorities, who have tried to shut it down and on Monday briefly detained six staff members — have brought Al Jazeera English new prominence in the United States.

American viewers have flocked to its website as it provides a nonstop live stream of its television feed. Traffic is up 2,500% since Friday, with nearly half of it coming from the United States, according to network officials.

Al Jazeera live coverage

My view of Al Jazeera changed completely when I visited my daughter in Amman, Jordan in 2006. The window on the world that my daughter and her family has is entirely different than what we see at home, and I was excited to find that Al Jazeera English was providing live coverage of the historic events in Egypt this weekend. If you’ve not had the chance to watch, you’ve missing some amazing live television, not so much because of the pictures, but because the “pro-people” stance of Al Jazeera has shone through clearly. Specifically, there’s no sense whatsoever that the company is trying to protect its access to high ranking “officials.” In fact, it’s just the opposite.

Al Jazeera anchor Folly Bah-ThibaultOn Saturday morning, I witnessed a remarkable encounter between Al Jazeera anchor Folly Bah Thibault and a member of the ruling National Democratic Party, who was a guest on the telephone. The guest kept referring to the protestors as “mobs of looters” and “setting fire to our beloved Cairo.” Ms. Bah Thibault, herself seemingly miffed at the accusations, struck back. “Sir, that’s not what we’re seeing right in front of us,” she said. “This is a popular uprising. These people are unhappy with your party.” The man responded that these were thugs intent on mischief, robbing and looting and setting fires. Ms. Taylor went back on the offensive, and the man wouldn’t answer her questions directly. The encounter ended with Ms. Bah Thibault saying, “Well, we’re just going to have to disagree on that.”

It was the kind of live encounter that you’d never see in the U.S., but I found it refreshing and highly authentic. Folly Bah Thibault knew her stuff and handled the constantly breaking news with grace and skill. I tried to think of an American anchor who could perform similarly, and I couldn’t. Why? We’re really not familiar with the complaints of the people, because we’re too busy cultivating sources from the élite. What Folly Bah Thibaultpossessed in the midst of the story was a deep knowledge of the Arab people and why they were displeased with the rule of dictator Hosni Mubarak, experience she has gained from reporting on the issues of the people for years. Meanwhile, Egyptian state television was showing peaceful protests by small pro-government crowds. This was the subject of much talk among the major protest locations and why the Bureau of Information was one of their targets. According to Al Jazeera, where people were gathered around TV sets, they were watching Al Jazeera.

Al Jazeera employees have been detained by authorities and their camera equipment seized. This is because the network is telling a truth that the government doesn’t want seen, and in that sense alone, this is far different than any other major network news coverage in history. With a media company like Al Jazeera shining this pro-people, pro-democracy light in the Middle East, status quo disruption is assured. There was much discussion about a “new” Middle East, which sends shivers down the spines of those who benefit from the status quo, those who believe that a Muslim state would be anti-West.

I think we’d all benefit from access to Al Jazeera English via cable in the U.S. The LATimes suggests this is more than a remote possibility.

Al Anstey, Al Jazeera English’s managing director, said the channel would use this event to press its case with American cable and satellite operators. “What has been demonstrated is a genuine demand for what we are doing,” he said in an interview from Doha. “This does prove that once you lay down the content, once people actually see it, any misconceptions about what Al Jazeera stands for are dispelled immediately.”

Al Jazeera anchor Ayman MohyeldinOne of the remarkable things about this event is that it has grown from the bottom up. Many times during coverage, the network has noted that no one is “in charge,” which leaves the position of “spokesperson” for the movement up for grabs. Al Jazeera’s young correspondent on the scene, Ayman Mohyeldin, has continually demonstrated a connection with the protesters so strong that he could actually become a spokesman for the group.

Mohyeldin’s grasp of the geopolitical inner workings of each nation in the region and his ability to extemporaneously speak of the relationship, for example, between Egypt and the United States, is something that I find remarkable from a network correspondent. But more so that his knowledge is the license to speak so candidly about the events without the inhibiting bondage of another “side” to the story. This is the future of journalism, for Al Jazeera’s intent here is pretty clearly to influence the situation on behalf of democracy,

Is such advocacy a part of journalism’s real time future? I find Al Jazeera English to be a fascinating new player on the world news stage, and once you taste its spice, it’s pretty hard to go back to the tame blandness of what Jay Rosen calls “he said/she said” journalism. We’re far too concerned with not upsetting anybody’s apple cart, and frankly, we wouldn’t have our First Amendment if the pamphleteers had been more “professional” in the 18th Century. So, yes, I think we’re witnessing the future unfold before our eyes.

This is a people’s revolution in Egypt. Let’s just hope that if the people get their way, Al Jazeera English will hold their feet to the fire during and after the transition.

What’s WRONG with us?

Since my return from Amman and my immersion into the Arab culture, I’m extremely sensitive to crap like what happened to an Arab traveler at McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas last week. This is a horrible story that suggests we are no better than the terrorists we’re trying to exterminate from the world. The consequences of our behavior may be unintended, but behavior is what others observe. And you can’t talk your way out of something you’ve behaved your way into.

Here’s the story, as reported Wednesday in The Las Vegas Sun.

German national Majed Shehadeh and his wife, Joanne Mulligan, had scheduled a surprise holiday visit with their daughter in California. Wanting to avoid LAX (because they’d been detained there 2 1/2 years ago), they went through Las Vegas. Mulligan traveled several days ahead of her husband, and when she went to the airport to get him last Thursday, she found he had been detained.

The 62-year old Shehadeh, a Syrian native, has a heart condition and was denied his own prescription medicine. He was held incommunicado, taken to a detention center, where his wife was refused access to him, went without medication for 36 hours, had nose bleeds and heart palpitations, and was eventually put on a plane back to Germany four days later.

Mulligan tried everything but was treated rudely and the holiday weekend worked against her.

Shehadeh told AP in a phone interview from his home in Alzenau, a small Bavarian village, that he had given an official at McCarran his German passport “and he looked to see which countries I visited. He found I had stamps that looked like Arabic and asked if they were fake.”

“Nobody ever informed me why I was being questioned,” he said. “All that was ever told to me was this had to do with Washington.”

An aide to (Rep. Diane) Feinstein later told the family that Shehadeh was on a “look-out list,” Mulligan told AP.

Mulligan, born in Massachusetts, retired as a math teacher for the U.S. military. She has lived in Germany since marrying, and the couple has visited the United States many times over the years. In 1996 she founded a nonprofit organization called People in Motion to help people in need, including children in Afghanistan and women in Bosnia.

Her husband’s detention “has to do with that we’re Muslim, that’s all,” she said.

Daughter Majida Shehadeh said, “When you’re a Muslim, you expect you’re going to get this in airports — a little more runaround. But being detained like this — it’s unbelievable. It’s unacceptable.”

The family is demanding to know why Shehadeh was detained and asks a curious question. “If he was a bad guy, why did they let him go? And if he was a good guy, why didn’t they let him join his family?” And according to the International Herald Tribune of Europe, the German government also wants an explanation.

Officials from the Germany’s Consulate General in Los Angeles will write shortly to U.S. immigration authorities in Las Vegas to ask why Shehadeh was detained, a spokesman for the German Foreign Ministry in Berlin said Thursday.

The consulate also will ask why U.S. officials allegedly relieved Shehadeh of his prescribed heart medicine, and why the immigration authorities did not inform the consulate about the case.

The spokesman said the consulate was following up a complaint from the man’s relatives that officials had taken away his medicine. Shehadeh has filed no formal complaint, he said.

A representative of the land of the free and the home of the brave (Oh, that’s us!) would only say that Shehadeh was detained, something we already knew.

I shudder at this kind of stuff, because I picture it happening to my family. I just cannot imagine what my daughter and her children would suffer, if this kind of thing happened to Waseem. I mean, it’s one thing to exercise security measures, but it’s quite another to dehumanize people in the process. Even if this man was some sort of threat, which I doubt, there is no justification for separating him so completely from his frightened and concerned family.

Way to go, Homeland Security. You’ve just lowered us, once again, in the eyes of a watching world.