On Saturday, I reported that British journalist Robert Fisk was denied entry into the U.S. but not barred. Mark Crispin Miller circulates some letters on the subject. Jeff Blankfort writes:

Robert Fisk was not barred from entering the U.S. because he is who he is, but because he did not have the latest British biometric passport which evaluates eye-scans and that is now required of all British subjects entering the U.S.

I spoke to him while he was at the Toronto airport and he did not want to make a big deal of it. When he returns later to the U.S. in November he will have the new passport. Unfortunately, the incident was mentioned at a speech he gave over TV in Arizona, according to Fisk, and was misinterpreted. The story appeared in the New Mexican and thanks to the internet it has achieved a life of its own. Fisk says it is not a story and shouldn’t be made out to be one.

But Michael D. Porter disagrees:

Well, hell, Fisk was barred from entry because of brand-new rules — made by some of the more insane members of the Bush administration — meant to limit foreigners (especially the foreign press) from entering this country. He might not want to make a big deal of it, but we should.

I wish to remind you, and everyone else, that Ewan McColl at one time was denied entry to this country — because of the songs he wrote and of the causes he held dear four and five decades ago — as was Bernadette Devlin McAliskey much more recently (detained and deported for the crime of wishing to visit relatives in NYC), because her cause, thirty-five years ago, was not that of the UK and she was therefore tarred with the brush of terrorism. As I recall, Margaret Atwood, as well, was detained in Chicago a while back between connecting flights, for purposes unknown.

Mr. Fisk may be sanguine about this turn of events. I am not. I am pissed. The excuse that a biometrically-appropriate passport was not presented by him (although his itinerary was likely well known prior to leaving the Lebanon or the UK) bears little scrutiny — dozens of officials on both sides of the Atlantic had opportunity to inform him of current requirements and aid him in entering the U.S., but apparently did not.

We ought to asking why his entry to the United States was not facilitated, rather than accepting the reasons given for why his entry was refused.

LEBANESE ANCHORWOMAN BOMBED

CNN reports:

BEIRUT, Lebanon (CNN) — A bomb planted in the car of a prominent Lebanese journalist blew up Sunday, critically wounding her, the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation and Lebanese security officials said. The blast apparently targeting LBC anchorwoman May Chidiac took place Sunday afternoon in Jounieh, north of Beirut. Chidiac — a prominent critic of Syria’s presence in Lebanon — was taken to a hospital, where a spokesman said she was stable after having her left leg and arm amputated, and would remain hospitalized for several days.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/09/25/lebanon.journalist/index.html

BBC REPORTS: HOLLYWOOD PRODUCER CHARGED

A Hollywood producer has been charged after allegedly taking $5.5m (EUR4.5m) from investors for a TV drama he said was backed by U.S. President George Bush. The U.S. attorney’s office alleges Joseph Medawar, 43, collected money from investors for two years but spent the majority of it on himself.

More than 70 investors, including churches, invested money in the series on the basis that the proposed series, called “DHS” (Department of Homeland Security) had been personally approved by Bush. Former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge was also said to have offered his support to the project.

Prosecutors allege the money was spent on cars, houses and expensive dinners for Medawar and his associate, Alison Heruth-Waterbury, who was billed as the star of DHS. Medawar heavily promoted the series giving interviews to newspapers and taking out adverts in Hollywood trade papers. But prosecutors allege they found no information “to indicate [Medawar] actually took steps to produce a television series.”

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4278458.stm

‘THE SOLE AUTHORITY’

Ghaith Abdul-Ahad remembers his friend Fakher Haidar al-Tamimi of the New York Times, killed in Basra:

Fakher always smiled and always shook your hand firmly, a small notebook in his other hand. He was the sole authority on anything that happened in Basra. Journalists from all over the world would seek Fakher’s help and insider’s knowledge on the south of the country. He knew everybody and everything.

Because of his big smile, shadowed by a huge, bushy moustache wildly out of proportion with his gaunt face, Basra always felt safe to me when I was with him. I saw him for the last time two months ago. We were in Baghdad, in a dark street outside the fortified castles of one of the western newspapers. He looked wary, but still forced a thin smile.

One of the things that made him such a good journalist was his near obsession with details. I once called him to ask about some rumours that were circulating of clashes between rival tribes in Basra. He told me the story, the numbers of people fighting, the weapons, the time. I had to remind him, apologetically, that I was interested in writing a few hundred words about the battle, not a book.

http://www.guardian.co.uk