First Person: NYC 7 Train Fills With Smoke Under E. River, MTA Silent, Lines Stay Closed

By Matthew Russell Lee

NEW YORK CITY, June 2 -- A New York City subway on the 7 line running east from Grand Central jolted to a stop on the night of June 2, under the East River, and filled with smoke. Inner City Press photo here, picked up with credit by NBC, here.

  There were no announcements by the train conductors or MTA. Riders began pushed their way back from where they thought the smoke was coming from, yelling for others to hurry up, knocking some down.

  But when the door between subway cars were opened, more smoke came in. There was panic. Some covered their faces with their shirts, photo here; others began to pray. In one car a man said loudly, “My cousin died in Nine-Eleven.”

New York City and its Metropolitan Transit Authority have been given many reasons to improve. Long since Nine-Eleven, in The Bronx we had a major derailment, which Inner City Press covered in detail. Promises were made. But the system remains sclerotic, unable to respond quickly to anything.

The 7 train was jammed although it was pasted 10 pm, because the MTA had stopped all service on the N, Q and R lines, shunting all of those passengers to the 7 line. Amid the smoke-filled pandemonium, some were still calculating how to get home: the 4, 5 or 6 north to catch the E train? Others continued to pray, preparing themselves for death.

The train lurched backward toward Grand Central, but then stopped again. A woman began to scream; others tried to calm her. One man, with a thick Irish accent, joked that bad things happen when the New York Yankees lose. 10 to 2, another said. Oh my God.

   A half-station under the United Nations at First Avenue has been reported on by Inner City Press, but the MTA did not use it.

  There were still no announcements by the train conductor or MTA. One rider opened the side window; smoke came in. Finally the train pulled back into the Grand Central stop, where the platform was jammed. Photo here. People bought bottles of water from the news stand; one woman fell to the platform, writhing. Still no explanation.

The N, Q and R were not re-opened; no new E trains came. Stoic New Yorkers set off on foot. “Take a picture to show your boss,” one rider shouted. It inched toward midnight...

Update: above ground, the three e-mail alerts from the MTA were:

11:05 pm: b/d, 7 trains are running with delays, due to a FDNY activity at 42 St. Allow additional travel time.

11:09 pm: Main St bnd, 7 trains terminate at Vernon Blvd, due to a FDNY activity at 42 St. Allow additional travel time.

11:22 pm: Times Sq bnd, 7 trains terminate at Hunters Point Av, due to a FDNY activity at 42 St.

  That's it...

  

After Beirut Bombings of Iran's Embassy, SNC Urges Iranian Change of Heart, Jarba's Sponsors Silent, Including on Libya Militia Killings

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 21 -- This is the story of two statements: one made, and one not made. After the bombing of Iran's embassy in Beirut, Ahmad Jarba's Turkey-based "Syrian Coalition" today issued a statement that:

"The Syrian Coalition condemns the twin blasts near the Iranian embassy south of the Lebanese capital Beirut, which killed and injured scores of civilians on Tuesday, November 19th. On behalf of the Syrian people, the Syrian Coalition extends its condolences to the people of Iran and hopes the government of Iran acknowledges the Syrian people’s daily suffering and reconsiders its unlimited support of the Assad Regime."

  Perhaps, just as France was bold to hold an event in September inside the UN and declare Jarba the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people, now Jarba is eschewing political correctness and hoping in a single sentence that the bomb attack will make Iran acknowledge something.

  But what if this SNC statement's logic were applied to other attacks, like Nine Eleven or the Westgate Mall in Kenya? Then, the denunciation would be near-immediate. So where are the statements from Jarba's sponsors, in Paris, Riyadh, Washington and elsewhere?

  Meanwhile, the UN Security Council never did issue a press statement on the killing of dozens of civilians in Libya by militias. On November 20 the New York Times published an editorial; but now the Security Council has gone on a retreat, sans Jordan. No statement. What statement does that make?

This stands in contrast to the Security Council's near-instant press statement when two French journalists were killed in Mali. What of dozens of civilians in Libya? What of the Responsibility to Protect, the theory cited to justify NATO air strikes?

  But  a journalist has been killed in Tripoli: Saleh Ayyad Hafyana of the Fassato News Agency. Will the UK, which holds the pen in the Council on Libya, call for a meeting?  Apparently not.

 Will the US, which drafted the Council's statement on the killing of two French journalists in Mali, draft one for the murdered journalist in Libya?  The Free UN Coalition for Access is asking this question, for even-handed treatment of journalists. 

  By contrast, the UN's Censorship Alliance (a/k/a UN Correspondents Association) hosted Jarba for a faux UN briefing in July, and tried again since then. What does their board, which did the inviting, think of this new Jarba linkage? Watch this site.

   

On Syria Chemical Weapons, France Says Assad Government Did It, Because Rebels Lack "Savoir-Faire," Ignoring Al Nusra Front, 9/11/01

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 2 -- The French government has concluded that chemical weapons were used around Damascus, by the Assad government. 

  How do they know this? By process of elimination: the French report concludes that no one in the "Syrian insurrection" has the savoir-faire with chemical weapons. Nevermind that Al Nusra was found with sarin, in Turkey, as Inner City Press noted here Nevermind that before 9/11/01 no one could be said to have the "savoir-faire" for that. The time to pile on reports, or just to say that evidence not share with others as NATO's Rasmussen did, is apparently here.

The French government's nine page report just release concludes:

"we believe that the Syrian opposition does not have the capacity to lead an operation of such magnitude with chemical agents. No group belonging to the Syrian insurrection has, at this stage, the ability to store and use these agents, let alone in a proportion similar to that used on the night of August 21, 2013 in Damascus. These groups have neither the experience nor the know-how to implement them, in particular by vectors such as those used in the attack on 21 August."

Click here for the French report; the above is a Google Translation of the final paragraph.

  As the Obama administration starts public and closed-door lobbying of Congress about chemical weapons in Syria, in the UK Nick Clegg has dismissed the idea of a second vote there. Defense Minister Hammond said much would have to change to even call a second vote.

   How about letting the US use UK facilities on Cyprus to take action on Syria? Number 10, Inner City Press learned and tweeted Sunday, has said there are no plans to offer assistance if allies like the US "choose a military response." It would apparently be different with regard to US bases on UK soil.

   Whether or not the US would really need to use facilities in Cyprus, some in the US see it as a slap in the face. Could that dramatic "Death Notice for the Special Relationship" contain more truth than initially thought?

  Meanwhile, which Secretary General gets the Syria chemical weapons evidence now being talked about so publicly -- the UN's or NATO's?

  On September 1 Inner City Press asked UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson Martin Nesirky if the hair and blood sample evidence US Secretary of State John Kerry was talking about had been shared with the UN.

Nesirky said he didn't know.

  On September 2 another Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen of NATO announced that "I have been presented with concrete information and, without going into details, I can tell you that personally I am convinced, not only that a chemical attack has taken place, but I am also convinced that the Syrian regime is responsible."

  Putting aside for the moment whether is it NATO's Rasmussen's role to be publicly ruling on evidence "without going into detail," it is striking that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon either didn't get the US' evidence, or wouldn't disclose that he had. (Previously, Nesirky did confirm to Inner City Press the receipt of other evidence.)

  When Ban Ki-moon signed a Memorandum of Understanding with NATO, there were questions from Russia and others if this was appropriate. (Then, NATO and not the UN was given a role in a plan for Libya that Inner City Press exclusively put online.) 

 The UN declined to make public or even summarize its MOU with NATO.  It and UN agreements like it should be made public; the new Free UN Coalition for Access@FUNCA_info is and will be pushing for this.

  Here's a question: under the MOU, shouldn't Rasmussen of NATO share with Ban Ki-moon this supposedly convincing evidence -- especially if the UN won't or can't say if the US has?

  Returning to NATO itself, why would Rasmussen interject himself as an individuals into this question of evidence, pending now before the US Congress and, at least in UN-world, on hold while the samples collected in Syria are running through European labs, with two Syrian government representatives in toe? Where is the accountability for Rasmussen? Watch this site.

   

Two Tales of UN Rapporteurs, Richard Falk, Juan Mendez & Bahrain, As DPI Leapt at a Single Tweet by Inner City Press

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 23 -- Why did UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon condemn the 9/11 comments of UN Special Rapporteur Richard Falk, but today refuse to comment on Falk's comments on the Boston bombings?

   Inner City Press asked Ban's deputy spokesman Eduardo Del Buey this question on April 23, and once Del Buey twice didn't answer it, the Press posited one explanation (to see if it might shake free some clarification.) 

   Is the difference to Ban the relative level of casualties? Or has Falk fatigue set in?

  After that, Del Buey told Inner City Press it could ask only one more question. Since the UN, as it happened, paid 27,000 pounds for a 3 pound UK golf ball detector, to offer false protection to its peacekeepers in Lebanon, that question has to be asked even though, again, there was no answer.

  But there was and is another UN Special Rapporteur question: Bahrain has delayed or Banned the rapporteuer on torture, Juan Mendez. Will Ban have a comment on that? We'll see.

  Ban's reticence at least for now to comment on Falk's theory of the Boston bombings is at odds with his Department of Public Information's “urgent” request to Inner City Press on April 18 to clarify a single tweet that it sent, click here for that.

  The tweet mentioning World War 2 and the new (German, male) police adviser to Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous, who has the job because of France's veto power in the Security Council, which was won along with... World War Two.

  Inner City Press was told, by DPI official Stephane Dujarric, that this tweet was offensive to millions of people, and crossed “all bounds;” Inner City Press was told that it was being “given the chance” to explain it.

  So the UN was threatening an independent media, over which is has no control at all other than accreditation -- which it at times seems to misuse to control content -- while Ban Ki-moon through his Associate Spokesman Farhan Haq says he is “not responsible” for Falk's views, and will not respond for or to them. Strange. Watch this site.

At UN, Falk Says Ban & Nambiar Encroach on Free Speech, No Due Diligence

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 20 -- As Richard Falk spoke to the press at the UN on Thursday about human rights in Palestine, he said that only the United States and Israel had been critical of him.

Inner City Press asked him about the blog he wrote about "open questions" about the September 11, 2011 attacks and a letter condemning his blog by Vijay Nambiar, chief of staff of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. What did Falk think of Ban and Nambiar's letter? Video here, from Minute 30:05.

"I didn't like it too well," Falk said. "It was a misinterpretation of my blog." Falk went on to say that "the Secretary General didn't look beyond the letter" from the NGO, and "encroached on the freedom of expression."

After the press conference Falk told Inner City Press that Nambiar later told him that no "due diligence" had been done before issuing the letter of confirmation: Ban never even read the blog before condemning it.

Even when Ban is described by some as showing principle, it is reactive, based on pressure and not "due diligence," it seems.

Friday at the UN, the special rapporteur on freedom of the press will be speaking. What about this UN's own respect for freedom of expression?

Falk at UN Oct 20, Ban Ki-moon due diligence not shown (c) MRLee

Inner City Press asked Falk about Palestine joining the International Criminal Court. Falk said that UN membership, which is subject to the veto in the Security Council, is not required to join the ICC, and that a General Assembly vote granting non-member state status might help Palestine to join the ICC.

Footnote: Falk confirmed Inner City Press' earlier footnote that he played tennis with US Ambassador Rick Barton. "He's a good player," Falk said, adding that Barton had spoken against one of Falk's presentations. Small world.