Nuestros Desaparecidos

Contributed by Jason Ketola
GEOVISION Production Company

(San Francisco CA) OUR DISAPPEARED/NUESTROS DESAPARECIDOS is the heart-breaking chronicle of director Juan Mandelbaum’s personal search for the souls of friends and loved ones, idealistic young students and activists, who were caught in the brutal vise of the right-wing military and “disappeared” in his native Argentina during the 1976-1983 military dictatorship. OUR DISAPPEARED/NUESTROS DESAPARECIDOS will air nationally on the Emmy Award-winning PBS series Independent Lens, hosted by Terrence Howard, on Monday, September 21, 2009 at 10PM. Find your local listing here.


Mandelbaum’s quest was triggered by a recent and very painful revelation. Through a Google search, he made the terrible discovery that Patricia Dixon, a long lost girlfriend,was among the desaparecidos. Almost thirty years after he left at the height of the repression, to escape the pervasive climate of feat, Juan returned to Argentina to explore her story and the stories of other friends and loved ones who had also disappeared. He learned first-hand of the horrors that befell them and the almost 30,000 people who were kidnapped by agents of the military government, secretly detained without trial, brutally tortured and then killed, never to be seen again.



Although idealistic and involved in community organizing, Mandelbaum was not willing to join the more militant and radical groups that were recruiting many of his friends. Inspired by the Cuban revolution and the election of Chile’s Salvador Allende, the first democratically elected Socialist president in the Americas, many of his fellow students at the University’s School of Philosophy and Letters were willing to support an armed struggle for a cause they believed in passionately -- that former President Juan Peron, who had been exiled to Spain, would lead Argentina on the road of socialism. It was a hope that was quickly crushed when Peron returned in 1973, and disowned the young radicals who had fought so hard for his return. Instead, right wing death squads began to pave the way for the military regime that, after 1976, targeted thousands of leftist activists for annihilation. Over 250 of Mandelbaum’s fellow students are among the disappeared.

In OUR DISAPPEARED, NUESTROS DESAPARECIDOS, Mandelbaum meets with the parents, siblings and children of many of these old friends, piecing together their dramatic stories through reminiscences, home movies and old photos. The film also uses rare and extraordinary archival footage (including an appearance by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in 1977 endorsing the military president) to bring the energy and tension of the time and place to life. It is a quietly devastating story of young lives viciously ended and the unending pain suffered by their families and their country.



To learn more about the film, visit the OUR DISAPPEARED, NUESTROS DESAPARECIDOS interactive companion website (http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/ourdisappeared/) which features detailed information on the film, including an interview with the filmmaker and links and resources pertaining to the film’s subject matter. The site also features a talk back section for viewers to share their ideas and opinions, preview clips of the film, and more.

The name's Khan. Shahrukh Khan.

by Sarika Arya

Indians speak over 400 different dialects and devote themselves to as many different religions and spiritual followings. The country finds common ground in its worship of cricket players and movie stars who are demigods among the population of more than 1 billion. Among even these select few, some, like Shahrukh Khan, stand out as Herculean when compared to the rest.

Khan is an actor (he has been in more than 70 films), film producer, television host, and a Bollywood king; which is really film star royalty since Bollywood is the largest film industry in the world. Bollywood produces 850 films annually (about 2 films a day), while Hollywood churns out about 450 films annually. Khan is slowly gaining prominence among Western audience who were hitherto still clueless about Bollywood. In 2008 Newsweek named Khan one of the 50 most powerful people in the world.

So, Khan is an internationally recognized name: but, as the megastar realized, not always for the right reasons.

On Friday, at Newark Liberty International airport, Khan was detained for inspections. Immediately, tales of racial profiling hit Indian newsstands, enraging Khan’s extensive fan base. Apparently inspired by the incident, 'The Times of India’ published this affronted, defensive, (and oddly patriotic) segment:

My name is Khan? Too bad. SRK feels the heat of American paranoia.
Chidanand Rajghatta and Bharati Dubey, 15 August 2009

WASHINGTON/MUMBAI: “My name is Khan.” “Oh it is, is it? Step aside, please.”

The way it was related, that might well have been the opening exchange between Shahrukh Khan and an unnamed, uninformed, super-empowered US immigration official who had no idea (and didn’t care) that the man in front of him is the star of a film by the same name (My name is Khan), much less that he is a universal Bollywood icon.

SRK, as the actor star is known by his popular acronym, was asked to indeed step aside for a “secondary inspections” at Newark’s ironically named (in this context) Liberty International airport on Friday en route to an event to celebrate India’s Independence Day in Chicago, President Barack Obama’s hometown. But that was only after a “primary inspection.”

(Click the link above to read the entire piece on 'The Times of India' website.)

Apparently, Khan, who has travelled to the US before and was never singled out then, believes that he was questioned because of his Muslim name and heritage. “I told them I was a movie star,” he was quoted as saying. But Khan’s stardom did not shield him from detention and a barrage of irrelevant questions, excused away by security reasons.

It has become disturbingly easy to generalize notions of human rights, simplifying the particular down to vague umbrella terms like “security,” “peace,” and “freedom.” In doing so, specific human rights law has been forgotten as governments tries to forward greater, unspecific, ‘humanitarian’ missions. The means justifies the ends. America tortures for security, bombs for peace, and detains for freedom. Paraphrasing Harold Koh, Dean of Yale Law School, in recent times America, instead of being a country of “zero tolerance” has become a country of “zero accountability.”

According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the US bureau of Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP’s) “suspicionless search policy” violates the constitutional rights and privacy rights, as well as the right to freedom of speech, inquiry, and association, of international travellers. CBP is even permitted to search laptops and other electronic devices of passengers, retaining their personal information indefinitely, regardless of whether they are suspected of wrongdoing in the first place. Human rights groups claim that CBP’s policies allow them to severely discriminate against travelers who are, or even appear to be, Muslim, Arab, or South Asian – those most associated with extremism and terrorism in light of the 9/11 attacks. Towards it end, the Bush administration issued a report to the United Nations (UN) Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination stating it was making efforts to end racial profiling, but included an absolute reservation against previous U.N. recommendations concerning “national security” or “border integrity.” Bush- era policies have become status quo in airport security, although the Obama administration has pledged to reverse this effect.

Racial profiling in airports can actually undermine security initiatives. According to Reginal Shuford, a senior staff attorney with ACLU’s Racial Justice Program, “It is a dangerous and slippery slope when we allow our government to take away a person’s rights because of his speech or ethnic background. Racial profiling is illegal and ineffective and has no place in a democratic society.” This does not mean security should be absent in American airports; far from it. "American paranoia" is very much so justified, to a certain extent. Recent events prove that it is necessary, more than ever, to maintain high vigilance – especially in ports of entry. But nations must be careful that in protecting human rights and civil liberties, they do not actually provoke and instigate the desire to revolt against such measures. For instance, detaining international Muslims is not a good way to promote peace and gain respect for democracy in an already alienated part of the world. Continental Airways employees are still suffering the backlash of frisking A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, a Muslim, Indian V.V.I.P (very very important person), and, not to mention, the former president of India, before he boarded a flight to New York back in April 2009. A standard security procedure should be required for all travelers (whether they be tourist, businessman, movie star or president) but further detention should only be implemented when suspicion is warranted by very specific behavior – one’s ethnic makeup does not qualify as a security breach that justifies a round of humiliating questions, full body pat- down, and retainment of one's private documents, in an isolated back room. In the case that security officials grossly misjudge someone, apologies, for the goodwill of all, must be made. Being treated in an otherwise degrading manner would only encourage hateful sentiments, fuelling desire to actually commit an act of terrorism. Big ideas about human rights can be reinforced and actually achieved by ensuring the detailed intricacies of human rights, those rights enshrined in national and international law, are respected.

US officials disputed the claim that Khan was detained. CBP stated that the agency routinely questioned foreigners and that Khan was questioned for exactly 66 minutes – not, as is being reported, 2 hours. Following intervention by American and Indian officials, Khan was ultimately released and is now focusing on completing his next film, which has since become a kind of art-imitates-life-piece, “My Name is Khan,” in which Shahrukh stars as a man subjected to racial profiling in America.

Palestinians on the Plane?

by Mahdi Sabbagh

As I enter the gate area in order to board, I am welcomed by the El Al Airlines’ lady standing in front of the entrance. She looks at my boarding pass and Israeli passport and tells me to go towards another lady standing in front of a different line. “It’s for standard security check” she says politely. “I already went through airport security” I respond.

She laughs and says: “This is Israeli security, it’s much better!”. I laugh along and proceed to hand the other lady my papers. The lady smiles and asks: “Where did you fly from?” I reply: “New York. It’s written on the plane ticket you’re holding” “And your final destination is Tel Aviv” “Yes.” She pauses, smiles again, and asks: “Where do you live in Israel?” “I live in Jerusalem”. She pauses again, continues “Where in Jerusalem?” I respond “Beit Hanina, in East Jerusalem”. She flips through my passport, asks me to wait on the side, takes my papers and walks to an area sealed off from the main sitting lounge with movable dividers.

The gate area fills up as more and more people check in and sit around in the waiting area. The lady comes back with my passport and asks me to follow her into the small room. She tells me that they are going to quickly scan my bags. I sit on a chair awkwardly positioned between a table and one of the dividing walls, start reading the wallpaper* magazine I had just bought, waiting for them to finish up. Three El Al staff come towards me and state that they will take my bags and jacket for a security check while one of them will give me a body search. No one had mentioned a body search when I was first told to proceed to the backroom but I play along regardless, and move into a tiny cubicle. The security man starts searching me, my arms, back, legs. He then asks me to take my shirt, shoes and belt off. He runs the cold plastic beeper around my waste and pants. The fake metallic buttons on my jeans make his machine beep. The security man gives it another try but the beeping persists. He tells me to wait, goes outside and comes back with his supervisor: “His trousers are causing a beeping, I think it’s ok”. The supervisor’s dark piercing eyes glare at me and says:

“Well, if it’s beeping, make him take his jeans off!”

The supervisor exits. The security man hesitates, but says: “I am sorry but I’m going to have to ask you to take your pants off.”

I recall friends going through similar experiences in the Tel Aviv airport but I never imagined myself in such a situation and not even in Israel or the Occupied Territories… I was still in Heathrow Airport, London! I stood still not really knowing how to respond to such a command. Should I accept the situation and comply? Is ‘please, take your pants off’ equivalent to ‘can I have your boarding pass please’ in the context of an airport security check? I start unbuttoning my pants and stop at the first button. Tense, light headed and realizing the absurdness of the situation, I look at the security man and say “This is unbelievable, are you seriously asking me to pull my pants down?” He responds very calmly: “This is just my job.” I reply: “But of course this is your job, I don’t see you asking every passenger to do the same.” He doesn’t respond. I bring myself together and think of the flight I have to catch in 30 minutes now. I focus on the systematic physical movement of unbuttoning my jeans; pulling them down for a few seconds and then pulling them back up. The operation goes by in no time. I collect my cloths and proceed into the room where my bags were being scanned. First glimpse towards my bags I realize that they had also gone through a similar experience. When I was told ‘a quick scan’ I expected someone to put my bags through an x-ray machine but instead, a lady was going through every compartment of my bag, taking out clothes, books, drawing pencils, electronics, and what have you, and dumping them into a large container. She had emptied my bag completely while I was being strip-searched.

As I approach to ask what the purpose of this procedure was, I notice the other security lady playing with my Ipod. She sees me and quickly places it down on the pile of things. The supervisor appears again with my coat and informs me that I cannot carry it with me on the plane. He says I have to leave it in my suitcase that I check in New York when I first departed. Curious about why one was not allowed to take a jacket onto an airplane I ask for an explanation. He stares at me, turns around and leaves. After a minute he comes back with my laptop stating that I also have to leave my laptop, camera and cellphone in the checked-in suitcase. I fly internationally very often and am usually aware of the typical procedures, but for a moment I wondered if there was a new law preventing me from taking anything but my clothes? Surely not. There was no way I was going to leave my laptop behind!

“I am sorry but I will not leave my laptop here. My suitecase isn’t even in the terminal yet because of the delay.”

“I’m sorry that’s how it works.”

I try to stay patient knowing that nothing I say will change the stubborn Israeli security supervisor.

“I don’t see you asking any other passenger to leave their electronics or coats behind. I don’t understand why I am going through this procedure and why I can’t keep my computer with me.”

“These are the laws, either you leave it with us and we put it in your suitcase when it arrives or you don’t get on the plane.”Several arguments later, (with the supervisor, the person who turned my bag upside down, and the person who stripped me) we do not reach an argument and the lady sitting at the entrance to the gate calls on the last passengers to board.

My flight leaves in 2 minutes. Do I do what feels right, which is to question the legality of their actions, whether this is just or ethical? Do I confront them individually? Do I ask to see a higher supervisor? Do I leave my belongings in Heathrow airport and board the plane?

I decide to end the humiliation and tell them that I would rather stay behind and catch a later flight with another airline than accept their unjust conditions and leave my belongings with them. With this decision, the questioning ends, they grab my belongings, dump them into my bag, hand it to me and send me off to the terminal. As the supervisor walks me to the exit I decide to give him a piece of my mind: “This system is unbelievably unjust. I am an Israeli citizen going back home! Out of all the Israelis going on that plane, you pick the only Arab one and make him miss his flight!” He doesn’t reply and escorts me to the exit.

I find myself walking away from the gate, towards the terminal, the ‘Departures’ screens with “Tel Aviv Flight Closing” shinning in bright red.

I walk slowly but steadily, no destination in mind. Walking as far away from the El Al staff as possible was the only thing on my mind. As I approach the main terminal, a bitter taste in my mouth, I try to assess what had just happened and realize that I put myself off that plane; that out of basic principle I had decided to end the nightmare and walk away. I had succeeded in that I was able to make a decision for my own and there was nothing they could do about it. Why did they pick me out of the line of people? Are the three staff seeing sense in what they had done? Do they truly think that pulling down my pants, checking the songs on my Ipod and asking me to leave my coat behind contribute to the ‘security’ of the airplane? I decide to keep the thinking for later and to try to catch the next flight.The British Airways staff tell me the ‘misunderstanding with El Al Airways’ was not their fault but mine because I had chosen not to depart and that there’s not much they can do but put me on stand-by for the next British Airways flight to Tel Aviv, in 12 hours!

I felt humiliated and terribly alone. There was no one I could turn to and nothing I could do in order to deal with the situation. What was I supposed to tell the British lady sitting at the counter: “I decided to get off the plane because I’d rather keep the little dignity that was left in me” “I can’t afford to leave half of my belonging behind”. “They wouldn’t let me on the plane because I am Palestinian?”