BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
IT IS SAID THAT THE IMMIGRATION DEAL IS DEAD. BUT HERE COMES CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O TO FOCUS ON IT.
AS WITH HIS FIRST TERM WHEN HE CHOOSE TO PUSH OBAMACARE AND NEGLECT JOBS CREATION, BARRY O SEEMS DETERMINED YET AGAIN TO FOCUS ON THE ECONOMY.
REACHED FOR COMMENT, BARRY O TOLD THESE REPORTERS, "WHAT PRESIDENT IS EVER REMEMBERED FOR JOBS? JOBS? I GOTTA GO BIG."
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Starting with NSA whistle-blower Ed Snowden. Eyder Peralta (NPR) reports, "Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor who leaked a cache of classified documents about U.S. surveillance programs, officially filed for temporary asylum in Russia on Tuesday, a human rights lawyer and WikiLeaks say." Why temporary? He may be planning on leaving Russia shortly. Or he may be wanting a quick answer. The process for temporary asylum is much quicker than if he would apply for permanent asylum. If granted, it would provide him with a one-year temporary asylum which would give him the same standing -- during that year -- as a citizen of Russia. At the end of that year, he could apply for an extension or he could apply for permanent asylum. That information is from a State Dept friend and goes a bit beyond what is offered by attorney Anatoly Kucherena who spoke with RIA Novosti today:
The lawyer said Snowden had chosen to apply for temporary asylum in Russia because he was tired, having been in the airport transit zone for about a month now. He added that if the leaker’s application for asylum is successful, he will get refugee status for one year, which will allow him to work and move around freely, and that status can be prolonged indefinitely.
Snowden would also need legal status in Russia in order to secure eventual passage to Latin American countries that have offered him asylum.
The UK Register notes, "Russian president Vladimir Putin has described NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden as an unwanted 'Christman present' from America." Putin wouldn't have a formal voice in temporary asylum. In fact, he should have no role in the decision. Again, that's per State Dept friend, however, that's how the process is supposed to work and government processes don't always work as they are supposed to.
At today's US State Dept press briefing by Patrick Ventrell, the topic of Ed Snowden came up.
QUESTION: Patrick, new topic. Snowden?
MR. VENTRELL: Okay.
QUESTION: So the U.S. has exhausted all options with Snowden and Russia with the extradition? Right?
MR. VENTRELL: Well, again, we don’t have an extradition treaty with Russia. Broadly speaking, our policy remains the same, that we’d like him returned based on previous law enforcement cooperation we’ve had with Russia. We think there’s a basis to do that, and we’d like to see him come home to face justice. He should have the courage to come home to the United States and face the criminal charges against him.
QUESTION: But I mean, what’s left? How are you going to convince the Russians that he should come home?
MR. VENTRELL: Well, we’ll continue to make, through law enforcement and diplomatic channels, our policy well known, and we have done so with the Russians, including up to the level of President Obama. So we’ll continue to make that case.
QUESTION: The Chinese got a kind of a free pass when they let him leave, go to Russia. We didn’t do anything and now what’s to say --
MR. VENTRELL: We expressed our very deep concern and I refer you to some of the remarks we made, indeed, during the S&ED about our deep concern about what the Chinese did. But --
QUESTION: But outside of a deep concern, what can the U.S. do to get Snowden back, besides asking?
MR. VENTRELL: I mean, again, we look toward Russia – look to Russia for law enforcement cooperation based on some of the excellent law enforcement cooperation we’ve had in the past.
QUESTION: Is there any indication that they’re going to be cooperative in the future?
MR. VENTRELL: Again, I don’t have any public readout of their thinking. I’ll let them speak for themselves.
QUESTION: But are – is the U.S. satisfied with the kind of cooperation it is getting from the Russians on the issue of Snowden?
MR. VENTRELL: Again, I --
QUESTION: Are you dissatisfied with them?
MR. VENTRELL: The sooner we can get him home to face justice, the better.
QUESTION: Do you know about a lawyer, a Russian lawyer today – we saw him last week – saying that he has applied – requested temporary asylum in Russia. Do you have any confirmation?
MR. VENTRELL: Again, I don’t have any confirmation on that one way or another. But we’ve said that he should come home and have the courage to come face the charges against him.
QUESTION: What would the U.S. response be if Russia does accept Snowden’s asylum request?
MR. VENTRELL: Again, I don’t want to get into a hypothetical, but I think the Russians know how strongly we feel on this case and how important it is for him to come home and face justice from our vantage point.
QUESTION: And what would they do if they didn’t accept it?
MR. VENTRELL: Again, I’m not going to get into a hypothetical.
While the State Dept and the White House and much of the US Congress works overtime to trash Ed Snowden, RT reports former US Senator Gordon Humphrey (New Hampshire, Republican) had e-mailed Snowden to pass on, "you have done the right thing in exposing what I regard as massive violation of the United States Constitution." When Glenn Greenwald (Guardian) contacted Humphrey to verify he had sent the earlier e-mail to Ed Snowden, he got a reply noting:
“Yes. It was I who sent the email message to Edward Snowden, thanking him for exposing astonishing violations of the US Constitution and encouraging him to persevere in the search for asylum,” Humphrey wrote Greenwald. “To my knowledge, Mr. Snowden has disclosed only the existence of a program and not details that would place any person in harm's way. I regard him as a courageous whistleblower,” he continued.
“I object to the monumentally disproportionate campaign being waged by the US government against Edward Snowden, while no effort is being made to identify, remove from office and bring to justice those officials who have abused power, seriously and repeatedly violating the Constitution of the United States and the rights of millions of unsuspecting citizens.”
“Americans concerned about the growing arrogance of our government and its increasingly menacing nature should be working to help Mr. Snowden find asylum. Former Members of Congress, especially, should step forward and speak out,” he concluded.
It's good to see people standing up for Ed. He is under attack. Mike observed last night, "I'm getting really tired of the people who can't focus on Ed Snowden. They can't support him, they can't realize he was trying to help all of us. If you're not interested in Ed Snowden and you're on the left, it feels like, to me, you're not interested in saving yourself." Melissa Harris Lacewell-Perry-for-now used her low rated MSNBC talk show to attack Ed (but she did get his name right, to her credit) with an embarrassing hectoring she passed off as an "open letter."
Fits of madness, pools of grief
Fevers of desire
How peculiar these remain
Salvaged from the fire
For some I crumpled
Some I burned
Some I tore to shreds
Lifetimes later, here they are
The ones I saved instead
Letters never sent to you
Letters never sent to you
Letters I never sent
Letters never sent to you
-- "Letters Never Sent," lyrics by Carly Simon and Jacob Brackman, music by Carly, first appears on Carly's Letters Never Sent album
Gary Leupp (CounterPunch) responds to Melissa's open letter with one of his own (this is his third open letter to Melissa) and his response includes:
Do you not understand that, in the first few days following his revelations, the spin-doctors incensed at his whistle-blowing, searching around in their fevered minds, opted to portray this very low-key guy as an ego-driven publicity seeker?
I mean, you seem to be asking, by default: why else would a person in a position to know about what you yourself call “information…about surveillance [that] raises serious issues about the behaviors of our leaders and how they justify and hide those practices from the public” reveal that information, other than to draw attention to himself?
Is there no such thing as old-fashioned morality? And selfless attention to what’s right? And in this case, doing the right thing at colossal personal cost?
You’re not making sense, Melissa. All you’re doing is swearing a loyalty oath to people who do not deserve your loyalty. You’re known for fighting against harmful stereotypes of black women that make it difficult for them to assert their political rights. (Bravo.) But you are using your own rights and privileged access to the camera to promote the character assassination of a young man whose sole crime has been to offend “your” president—the one who has now eight times invoked the World War One-era “espionage” act to punish whistle-blowers.
You’re the bully here. Snowden’s not picking on you; you’re picking on him, and apparently relishing it. Feels so good, doesn’t it, standing up for the system like that, being so safe?
Last night, Ann noted Norman Solomon's latest column and she offered:
We can only do so much when the MSNBC whores who pretend to be left make a point of attacking him. The airwaves are filled with attacks on Ed. So we need to make part of our effort in exposing these hypocrites like Melissa Harris Perry. She -- and people like her -- are ensuring that no real movement is going to take place. Now or ever. These people need to be exposed for the frauds they are.
So let's again note that (Rebecca noted this) that Vanity Fair calls Ed Snowden a "turncoat" and that In These Times published Louis Nayman's crap ("In Defense of PRISM") which argues, as all the politically closeted must, that to call out Blessed Barack is to do the work of the Republicans. In other words, there are whores and then are used up, worn out whores like Louis Nayman. In These Times readers need to seriously consider whether the rag is worth anything anymore.
Melissa also felt the need to attack Glenn Greenwald:
We could be talking about whether accessing and monitoring citizen information and communications is constitutional, or whether we should continue to allow a secret court to authorize secret warrants using secret legal opinions. But we’re not. We’re talking about you! And flight paths between Moscow and Venezuela, and how much of a jerk Glenn Greenwald is.
We could also be talking about what kind of a mother Melissa Harris-Lacewell-Perry is. That makes about as much sense, right? Understand, Ava and I were very kind at Third:
Melissa, especially needs stability. Her family life is falling apart and if she doesn't like that being known she might ask her daughter not to talk so much at school about what goes on in the house. We'll be really kind and leave it at that.
If Melissa wants to start a bitch-fest, we don't have to be kind and, warning to Lie Face Melissa, we will always out bitch her. We've already sent her packing from Princeton does she really want us bending the ear of her MSNBC boss as well?
In fact, Lie Face Melissa probably shouldn't go after Glenn or anyone because she inhabits the ultimate glass house. She began working on Barack's campaign in 2007 but went on Democracy Now! in January 2008 as an 'independent analyst' who 'forgot' to disclose that she was working on a campaign. You're required to disclose. In March 2008, she went on Charlie Rose to participate in a 'journalist' panel and all the other journalists weren't backing anyone -- only Melissa was working for a campaign -- a fact she 'forgot' to disclose -- and she also attacked Tavis Smiley and insisted to Charlie that people were attacking him -- forgetting to disclose that 'people' was Melissa with her bad blog post and her myriad of sock puppets.
She may think Glenn's "a jerk" and she's entitled to her opinion but if she wants to express it, she should realize that her unethical behavior has already cost her and she's damn lucky that for three years only Ava and I were calling her out. Not on opinion, calling her out for ethical violations (we also shared with Princeton her public remarks about the students she was teaching -- her insulting public remarks about the students she was teaching).
I don't doubt that Glenn can have his "jerk" moments. (I have mine and worse. Most of us do.) But that's really not an issue. The issue is he broke the story that still stays in the news cycle all these weeks later. Brendan Sasso (The Hill) reports, "A Unitarian church, a gun rights group and a host of other activist organizations on Tuesday sued to end the National Security Agency's massive phone record collection program." The Electronic Freedom Foundation issued the following:
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Iraq: Mortar attacks, moats, burning buildings"
"Veterans' issues"
"Rachel Jeantel: Homophobe"
"About all the Zimmerman coverage"
"The Drone War"
"david kelly"
"'Fired' State Department staff still drawing paychecks"
"Ed Snowden"
"Rachel Jeantel is still an idiot"
"Stevie, please"
"Ms. magazine embraces homophobia"
"Norman Pollack"
"Puppy love"
"THIS JUST IN! PRESIDENTIAL LOVE!"
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Puppy love
BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
AT THE WHITE HOUSE YESTERDAY, CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O MET WITH POPPY BUSH AND THE TWO EXCHANGED PLEASANTRIES AND GIFTS. BARRY O INSISTED UPON IGNORING IRAN-CONTRA, PANAMA AND ASSORTED OTHER ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES TO DECLARE, "WE ARE SURELY A KINDER AND GENTLER NATION BECAUSE OF YOU."
THEN THE TWO WRAPPED ARMS AROUND ONE ANOTHER AND BEGAN DRY HUMPING AS EVERYONE LOOKED ON.
AS HE WALKED OFF TO THE OVAL OFFICE, BARRY O WAS HEARD TO SAY, "OLD MAN BUSH PUTS OUT LIKE A CANDY MACHINE."
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Friday, NSA whistle-blower Ed Snowden addressed the world and met with representatives from various human rights groups. While he continues to seek sanctuary, he remains in Russia. BBC News reports, "The US authorities have in effect trapped fugitive intelligence leaker Edward Snowden in Russia, President Vladimir Putin has said." RT notes:
The president stressed that the US basically trapped ex-CIA employee Snowden in Russia while he was in transit to other countries.
"He arrived on our territory without an invitation, he was not flying to us - he was flying in transit to other countries. But as soon as he got in the air it became known, and our American partners, in fact, blocked his further flight," Putin said, meaning that the US government revoked Snowden’s passport shortly after he arrived at Moscow Sheremetyevo Airport.
"They scared other countries. No one wants to accept him,” he added.
When asked about what was next for Snowden, Putin replied: “How should I know? That’s his life, his fate.”
Reuters quotes Putin stating, "As soon as there is an opportunity for him to move elsewhere, I hope he will do that. The conditions for granting political asylum are known to him. And judging by his latest actions, he is shifting his position. But the situation has not been clarified yet." RIA Novosti adds:
On Monday, Putin added that Russia would not give permanent asylum to Snowden because he refused to stop a “fight for human rights” that may strain Moscow’s ties with Washington.
The Russian leader cited Snowden as saying, “I want my work to go on. I want to fight for human rights. I think the US is breaking certain legal standards, international [rules], and is intruding into private lives. My aim for now is to fight it.”
But, according to Putin, the Russian side replied, ‘Go on without is, we have [other] things to fight for.’”
At the time, more than 100 teams of U.S. analysts were scouring Iraq for snippets of electronic data that might lead to the bomb-makers and their hidden factories. But the NSA director, Gen. Keith B. Alexander, wanted more than mere snippets. He wanted everything: Every Iraqi text message, phone call and e-mail that could be vacuumed up by the agency’s powerful computers.
The spying scandal Ed Snowden blew the whistle on, has Iraq roots. Today Glenn Greenwald (Guardian) notes "The Washington Post this morning has a long profile of Gen. Keith Alexander, director the NSA, and it highlights the crux - the heart and soul - of the NSA stories, the reason Edward Snowden sacrificed his liberty to come forward, and the obvious focal point for any responsible or half-way serious journalists covering this story." The article by Ellen Nakashima and Joby Warrick is about a program developed by Alexander in Iraq:
At the time, more than 100 teams of U.S. analysts were scouring Iraq for snippets of electronic data that might lead to the bomb-makers and their hidden factories. But the NSA director, Gen. Keith B. Alexander, wanted more than mere snippets. He wanted everything: Every Iraqi text message, phone call and e-mail that could be vacuumed up by the agency’s powerful computers.
“Rather than look for a single needle in the haystack, his approach was, ‘Let’s collect the whole haystack,’ ” said one former senior U.S. intelligence official who tracked the plan’s implementation. “Collect it all, tag it, store it. . . . And whatever it is you want, you go searching for it.”
At Salon, Marcy Wheeler offers a critique of the Post's report:
But the headline and the first paragraphs overstate the degree to which the story is about terrorism (even assuming every Iraqi targeting US troops in 2006 was a terrorist rather than a counter-occupation force). As it notes, Alexander’s urge to “collect it all” also stems from his mandate to protect against cyberattacks and—in his other role as the head of Cybercommand—to conduct offensive attacks such as the StuxNet sabotage of Iran’s nuclear centrifuge program.
Indeed, much later the story reveals a meeting where Alexander proposed having NSA operate on banks’ networks and in their databases in search of malware that might compromise their systems. What may have once been about protecting American service members in Iraq has become an imperative to protect private companies’ property at the expense of their customers’ privacy (and taxpayer dollars). “Wow. That’s kind of wild,” one of the executives present at the meeting described the financial executives’ response to the Post.
Moreover, the Post does not prove Alexander’s maximal approach worked.
It obviously did not work. Violence actually increased after the program was implemented and the notion that the Post and Marcy Wheeler present is also wrong. The program was not about protecting American troops, it was about lowering violence in Iraq. The US forces were in charge of Iraq at that time, that was their mission, to provide stability. This program was supposed to assist the US military in their mission just as much as it was supposed to provide protection for the US troops. The program was an utter failure. 2006 and 2007 would be the most violent years in Iraq.
Today, Iraq is repeatedly slammed with violence. It's gone back to 2008 levels. This evening, Alsumaria reports, a suicide bomber targeted a Musayyib mosque leaving 5 people dead and 13 injured. Attacks on any house of worship is shocking. But so much violence is taking place these days, very little of it registers individually and reports tend to focus more on the numbers and less on specific incidents. For example, Xinhua notes that "the death toll over the past four days to more than 160." Prensa Latina offers, "Attacks in the first two weeks of July in Iraq have taken the lives of more than 370 people, bringing this year death toll to 2,600 so far." Iraq Body Count counts 437 violent deaths for the month so far through Sunday. Michael Bassin (Times of Israel) explains, "The past three months have been particularly tragic for this splintered nation, during which 2,500 have been killed, including 150 in the past four days alone. According to the London-based daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi, the United Nations warns that the country may slide into full-fledged civil war before the end of the month." Linda Gradstein (National Post) speaks with the International Crisis Group's Maria Fantappie:
“The Iraqi government is increasingly relying on the security forces to maintain control over the country,” said Maria Fantappie who studies Iraq for the International Crisis Group and lives in Baghdad.
“The Sunni population within Iraq does not feel represented within the Baghdad central government.”
Ms. Fantiappe said a reliable census has never been done, but estimates are that between 20 and 40 percent of the population are Sunni. While Prime Minister Nour al-Maliki is a Shiite, Parliament Speaker Osama Al-Nujaifi is a Sunni, and Maliki’s deputy, Roj Nuri Shawis, is Kurdish. About 17 percent of the population are Kurdish, and are fighting for a separate state in northern Iraq.
“There are more and more fears of the return of the sectarian violence because attacks have targeted both Sunnis and Shiites,” Ms. Fantiappe said. “On the social level, there is more and more mistrust among the different communities.”
On the violence, NINA reports "an anti-terrorism official" was shot dead in Baghdad, an oil engineer was kidnapped in Kirkuk, a Tuz Khurmatu bombing left nine people injured, a Mosul bombing claimed the life of 1 police officer and left a civilian injured, a Falluja bombing left three Iraqi soldiers injured, a Mosul roadside bombing left 1 Iraqi soldier and 1 police officer injured, a Mosul suicide bombing saw the bomber take his own life and that of 1 Iraqi soldier and 1 Iraqi civilian while injuring six other people, a Tikrit mortar attack claimed 7 lives and left fifteen injured, a bombing to the west of Kirkuk claimed 2 lives and left four injured, and an "anti-terrorism officer" was shot dead in Baghdad. At least some of the victims of the Tikrit attack were present to swim in the river, Mu Xuequan (Xinhua) explains and notes, "Young men used to swim at the bank of the river in the afternoon to escape the summer temperatures which usually soar to almost 50 degrees Celsius in Iraq." AP also notes the victims were "trying to escape the blistering summer heat by swimming."
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Nouri will 'address' the Iraqi homeless"
"The non-revelation turned into a storm"
"Hejira"
"Norman Solomon"
"And I was going to praise him"
"Of course it ended that way"
"the backstory"
"A good and needed move"
"The spectacle becomes everything"
"Third and Ed Snowden"
"Major Crimes"
"Orange Is The New Black"
"Ed Snowden, Third"
"We're better off when he doesn't try to help!"
"THIS JUST IN! KING OF ALL SCREW UPS!"
AT THE WHITE HOUSE YESTERDAY, CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O MET WITH POPPY BUSH AND THE TWO EXCHANGED PLEASANTRIES AND GIFTS. BARRY O INSISTED UPON IGNORING IRAN-CONTRA, PANAMA AND ASSORTED OTHER ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES TO DECLARE, "WE ARE SURELY A KINDER AND GENTLER NATION BECAUSE OF YOU."
THEN THE TWO WRAPPED ARMS AROUND ONE ANOTHER AND BEGAN DRY HUMPING AS EVERYONE LOOKED ON.
AS HE WALKED OFF TO THE OVAL OFFICE, BARRY O WAS HEARD TO SAY, "OLD MAN BUSH PUTS OUT LIKE A CANDY MACHINE."
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Friday, NSA whistle-blower Ed Snowden addressed the world and met with representatives from various human rights groups. While he continues to seek sanctuary, he remains in Russia. BBC News reports, "The US authorities have in effect trapped fugitive intelligence leaker Edward Snowden in Russia, President Vladimir Putin has said." RT notes:
The president stressed that the US basically trapped ex-CIA employee Snowden in Russia while he was in transit to other countries.
"He arrived on our territory without an invitation, he was not flying to us - he was flying in transit to other countries. But as soon as he got in the air it became known, and our American partners, in fact, blocked his further flight," Putin said, meaning that the US government revoked Snowden’s passport shortly after he arrived at Moscow Sheremetyevo Airport.
"They scared other countries. No one wants to accept him,” he added.
When asked about what was next for Snowden, Putin replied: “How should I know? That’s his life, his fate.”
Reuters quotes Putin stating, "As soon as there is an opportunity for him to move elsewhere, I hope he will do that. The conditions for granting political asylum are known to him. And judging by his latest actions, he is shifting his position. But the situation has not been clarified yet." RIA Novosti adds:
On Monday, Putin added that Russia would not give permanent asylum to Snowden because he refused to stop a “fight for human rights” that may strain Moscow’s ties with Washington.
The Russian leader cited Snowden as saying, “I want my work to go on. I want to fight for human rights. I think the US is breaking certain legal standards, international [rules], and is intruding into private lives. My aim for now is to fight it.”
But, according to Putin, the Russian side replied, ‘Go on without is, we have [other] things to fight for.’”
At the time, more than 100 teams of U.S. analysts were scouring Iraq for snippets of electronic data that might lead to the bomb-makers and their hidden factories. But the NSA director, Gen. Keith B. Alexander, wanted more than mere snippets. He wanted everything: Every Iraqi text message, phone call and e-mail that could be vacuumed up by the agency’s powerful computers.
The spying scandal Ed Snowden blew the whistle on, has Iraq roots. Today Glenn Greenwald (Guardian) notes "The Washington Post this morning has a long profile of Gen. Keith Alexander, director the NSA, and it highlights the crux - the heart and soul - of the NSA stories, the reason Edward Snowden sacrificed his liberty to come forward, and the obvious focal point for any responsible or half-way serious journalists covering this story." The article by Ellen Nakashima and Joby Warrick is about a program developed by Alexander in Iraq:
At the time, more than 100 teams of U.S. analysts were scouring Iraq for snippets of electronic data that might lead to the bomb-makers and their hidden factories. But the NSA director, Gen. Keith B. Alexander, wanted more than mere snippets. He wanted everything: Every Iraqi text message, phone call and e-mail that could be vacuumed up by the agency’s powerful computers.
“Rather than look for a single needle in the haystack, his approach was, ‘Let’s collect the whole haystack,’ ” said one former senior U.S. intelligence official who tracked the plan’s implementation. “Collect it all, tag it, store it. . . . And whatever it is you want, you go searching for it.”
At Salon, Marcy Wheeler offers a critique of the Post's report:
But the headline and the first paragraphs overstate the degree to which the story is about terrorism (even assuming every Iraqi targeting US troops in 2006 was a terrorist rather than a counter-occupation force). As it notes, Alexander’s urge to “collect it all” also stems from his mandate to protect against cyberattacks and—in his other role as the head of Cybercommand—to conduct offensive attacks such as the StuxNet sabotage of Iran’s nuclear centrifuge program.
Indeed, much later the story reveals a meeting where Alexander proposed having NSA operate on banks’ networks and in their databases in search of malware that might compromise their systems. What may have once been about protecting American service members in Iraq has become an imperative to protect private companies’ property at the expense of their customers’ privacy (and taxpayer dollars). “Wow. That’s kind of wild,” one of the executives present at the meeting described the financial executives’ response to the Post.
Moreover, the Post does not prove Alexander’s maximal approach worked.
It obviously did not work. Violence actually increased after the program was implemented and the notion that the Post and Marcy Wheeler present is also wrong. The program was not about protecting American troops, it was about lowering violence in Iraq. The US forces were in charge of Iraq at that time, that was their mission, to provide stability. This program was supposed to assist the US military in their mission just as much as it was supposed to provide protection for the US troops. The program was an utter failure. 2006 and 2007 would be the most violent years in Iraq.
Today, Iraq is repeatedly slammed with violence. It's gone back to 2008 levels. This evening, Alsumaria reports, a suicide bomber targeted a Musayyib mosque leaving 5 people dead and 13 injured. Attacks on any house of worship is shocking. But so much violence is taking place these days, very little of it registers individually and reports tend to focus more on the numbers and less on specific incidents. For example, Xinhua notes that "the death toll over the past four days to more than 160." Prensa Latina offers, "Attacks in the first two weeks of July in Iraq have taken the lives of more than 370 people, bringing this year death toll to 2,600 so far." Iraq Body Count counts 437 violent deaths for the month so far through Sunday. Michael Bassin (Times of Israel) explains, "The past three months have been particularly tragic for this splintered nation, during which 2,500 have been killed, including 150 in the past four days alone. According to the London-based daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi, the United Nations warns that the country may slide into full-fledged civil war before the end of the month." Linda Gradstein (National Post) speaks with the International Crisis Group's Maria Fantappie:
“The Iraqi government is increasingly relying on the security forces to maintain control over the country,” said Maria Fantappie who studies Iraq for the International Crisis Group and lives in Baghdad.
“The Sunni population within Iraq does not feel represented within the Baghdad central government.”
Ms. Fantiappe said a reliable census has never been done, but estimates are that between 20 and 40 percent of the population are Sunni. While Prime Minister Nour al-Maliki is a Shiite, Parliament Speaker Osama Al-Nujaifi is a Sunni, and Maliki’s deputy, Roj Nuri Shawis, is Kurdish. About 17 percent of the population are Kurdish, and are fighting for a separate state in northern Iraq.
“There are more and more fears of the return of the sectarian violence because attacks have targeted both Sunnis and Shiites,” Ms. Fantiappe said. “On the social level, there is more and more mistrust among the different communities.”
On the violence, NINA reports "an anti-terrorism official" was shot dead in Baghdad, an oil engineer was kidnapped in Kirkuk, a Tuz Khurmatu bombing left nine people injured, a Mosul bombing claimed the life of 1 police officer and left a civilian injured, a Falluja bombing left three Iraqi soldiers injured, a Mosul roadside bombing left 1 Iraqi soldier and 1 police officer injured, a Mosul suicide bombing saw the bomber take his own life and that of 1 Iraqi soldier and 1 Iraqi civilian while injuring six other people, a Tikrit mortar attack claimed 7 lives and left fifteen injured, a bombing to the west of Kirkuk claimed 2 lives and left four injured, and an "anti-terrorism officer" was shot dead in Baghdad. At least some of the victims of the Tikrit attack were present to swim in the river, Mu Xuequan (Xinhua) explains and notes, "Young men used to swim at the bank of the river in the afternoon to escape the summer temperatures which usually soar to almost 50 degrees Celsius in Iraq." AP also notes the victims were "trying to escape the blistering summer heat by swimming."
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Nouri will 'address' the Iraqi homeless"
"The non-revelation turned into a storm"
"Hejira"
"Norman Solomon"
"And I was going to praise him"
"Of course it ended that way"
"the backstory"
"A good and needed move"
"The spectacle becomes everything"
"Third and Ed Snowden"
"Major Crimes"
"Orange Is The New Black"
"Ed Snowden, Third"
"We're better off when he doesn't try to help!"
"THIS JUST IN! KING OF ALL SCREW UPS!"
Sunday, July 14, 2013
We're better off when he doesn't try to help!
BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
IF ONLY HE WERE LESS IN LOVE WITH THE SOUND OF HIS OWN VOICE!
ONE OF THE BIGGEST CRISES IN THE U.S. MILITARY TODAY IS RAPE AND ASSAULT.
CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O ELECTED TO SPEAK OUT ON THE TOPIC AND, IN DOING SO, HE MAY HAVE PREJUDICED MANY ONGOING CASES.
REACHED FOR COMMENT BY THESE REPORTERS, BARRY O LAUGHED AND SAID, "WELL, EVERYONE'S ALLOWED ONE MISTAKE."
YEAH. ONE.
NOT A MILLION AND ONE.
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
This morning, the world waited to hear from NSA whistle-blower Ed Snowden as media poured into the Moscow airport in anticipation of what the person who has influenced a global dialogue might say next. Ahead of his appearing, BBC News notes, "The American is believed to have been stuck in transit since arriving in Moscow from Hong Kong on 23 June, even though no pictures of his stay there have emerged."
On the above, it's cute to watch the reaction of the press. Michael Hirsh (National Journal) wrote a ridiculous article blaming Ed for the circus that surrounds him -- that would be the press circus and Hirsh needs to learn to hold his own industry accountable or stop pointing the fingers at others. If he's not getting how useless the press is being, he can examine how they covered the above with so many focusing on Ed's name. Telegraph of London, "Snowden, apparently wants to be called Ed, not Edward." Forbes: "[. . .] letting them know that 1) he prefers to be called Ed, and 2) he's ready to get out of there" -- and we could go on and on.
So, Michael Hirsh, who's causing the circus? Not Ed. And the press can't even be honest about the issue of the name.
We never called Ed Snowden anything but "Ed Snowden." Dropping back to the June 11th snapshot:
Strange times in Portland, Maine
Lobsters dancing on the docks
Switzerland's been weird since they unplugged the clocks
Man and a woman in Brooklyn Heights
Each convinced the other's in the wrong
While last year the divorce rate tripled in Hong Kong
If through all the madness
We can stick together
We're safe and sound
The world's just inside out and upside down
-- "Safe and Sound," written by Jacob Brackman and Carly Simon, first appears on Carly's Hotcakes
The world is inside out and upside down these days. In even the most basic ways. Take Ed Snowden, the whistle-blower who exposed the programs Barack and Clapper are currently defending, and take Nashwan Abdulrazaq Abdulbagi. By the 'press rule,' Ed Snowden's name is "Edward Snowden." Stan wrote last night about how the press stripped Glen King of his name and insisted he be called Rodney King. Ed Snowden is very clear in the Guardian video interview that his name is Ed Snowden. That is how he identifies himself. The New York Times identifying him as "Edward Snowden" is not surprising to me. That people on the left go along with it surprises me.
How much more clear is it than someone identifying themselves on video as the NSA whistle-blower and stating their name as "Ed Snowden"? The press has refused to call him by his name. Today, he again stated his name. And the press wants to pretend this is something new or novel -- as opposed to the reality that they got it wrong for over a month now.
There was a great deal to address. At the State Dept press briefing today, Associated Press' Matthew Lee and CNN's Elise Labott attempted to address the issues. It was not a proud moment for Jen Psaki or for the State Dept.
Matthew Lee: Can we start in Russia –
Jen Psaki: Mm-hmm.
Matthew Lee: -- with Mr. Snowden? I’m wondering if, since he has now asked the Russians for asylum, there has been any contact between this building and the Russians about your feelings about his status.
Jen Psaki: Well, I can tell you – I hadn’t seen – or I don’t have independent confirmation, I guess I should say, about any request he’s made. I can tell you that we have been in touch, of course, with Russian officials. Our Embassy in Moscow has been in direct contact on the ground. We are disappointed that Russian officials and agencies facilitated this meeting today by allowing these activists and representatives into the Moscow airport’s transit zone to meet with Mr. Snowden despite the government’s declarations of Russia’s neutrality with respect to Mr. Snowden.
Matthew Lee: So I’m sorry. You’re disappointed that they let someone into their own airport?
Jen Psaki: Well –
Matthew Lee: I don’t get it.
Jen Psaki: Well, that they facilitated this event, of course.
Matthew Lee: Well, why?
Jen Psaki: Because this gave a forum for –
Matthew Lee: You don’t think that he should have a forum? Has he – he’s forfeited his right to freedom of speech as well?
Jen Psaki: Well, Matt, Mr. Snowden –
Matthew Lee: All right.
Jen Psaki: -- as we’ve talked about – let me just state this –
Matthew Lee: Okay.
Jen Psaki: -- because I think it’s important. He’s not a whistleblower. He’s not a human rights activist. He’s wanted in a series of serious criminal charges brought in the eastern district of Virginia and the United States.
Matthew Lee: Okay. I’m sorry. But I didn’t realize people who were wanted on charges forfeited their right to speech – to free speech. I also didn’t realize that people who were not whistleblowers or not human rights activists, as you say he is not, that they forfeited their rights to speak, so I don’t understand why you’re disappointed with the Russians, but neither that – leave that aside for a second. The group WikiLeaks put out a transcript, I guess, essentially, of Mr. – what Mr. Snowden said at the airport. At the top of that transcript, it contained – it said that the Human Rights Watch representative from Human Rights Watch, researcher who went to this thing, while she was on her way to the airport, got a phone call from the American Ambassador asking her to relay a message to Mr. Snowden that – basically the message that you just gave here, that, one, he is not a whistleblower, and, two, that he is wanted in the United States. Is that correct?
Jen Psaki: It is not correct. First, Ambassador McFaul did not call any representative from Human Rights Watch. An embassy officer did call to explain our position, certainly, that I just reiterated here for all of you today, but at no point did this official or any official from the U.S. Government ask anyone to convey a message to Mr. Snowden.
Matthew Lee: Did anyone from the Embassy call any of the other groups – representatives of groups that were going to this meeting – that you understood were going to this meeting?
Jen Psaki: As I’m sure would be no surprise, and as you know because we even had a civil society event when the Secretary was there, we are in regular touch, as we have been today. I don’t have an update on the exact list of calls, though, for you.
Matthew Lee: But you can say pretty conclusively that this one call did happen, and that it wasn’t the Ambassador. So were there others? Do you know?
Jen Psaki: We have –
Matthew Lee: Did calls go to other groups?
Jen Psaki: -- been in touch with –
Matthew Lee: Okay.
Jen Psaki: -- attendees.
Matthew Lee: Yes.
Jen Psaki: I don’t have any specifics for you, though.
Matthew Lee: Okay. And the – and you have made no secret of the fact that any country or government that gives Mr. Snowden asylum or allows him to transit through, that there would be some serious consequences for – grave consequences in their relationship with the United States.
Jen Psaki: Mm-hmm.
Matthew Lee: Have you made the same – and presumably that would apply to individuals who would help him stay – help him avoid returning here to face justice. Is that – that’s correct?
Jen Psaki: I’m not sure what that exactly means.
Matthew Lee: Well, I’m – what I’m getting at is these groups, the human rights groups that are respected human rights groups –
Jen Psaki: : Mm-hmm.
Matthew Lee: -- which you yourself, as well as previous spokespeople have quoted from –
Jen Psaki: Mm-hmm.
Matthew Lee: -- in relation to other situations, have taken a side in support of Mr. Snowden, and I’m wondering if there are any consequences for them if you – if they aid and abet Mr. Snowden in staying away – out of the reach of U.S. authorities.
Jen Psaki: Well, we obviously don’t think this was a proper forum or a proper elevation of him. Beyond that, the way that I think it’s been asked, but also the way we’ve thought about it, is more about governments and our relationships with them and their aid or decisions to aid Mr. Snowden.
Matthew Lee: Right, but I guess the question is: If you think this was an inappropriate forum, did you try to dissuade these groups from going there?
Jen Psaki: From attending?
Matthew Lee: Yeah.
Jen Psaki: Not that I’m aware of, Matt. Obviously –
Matthew Lee: Okay. So the call –
Jen Psaki: -- they were invited to attend.
Matthew Lee: So the calls were just a reminder of your position. Did you say to Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International that if you guys help Mr. Snowden, support him in some way so that – to keep him from facing justice back in the United States, that there would be consequences for them?
Jen Psaki: I don’t have any readouts of these calls. Our focus remains on –
Matthew Lee: Okay. Well, then can you say –
Jen Psaki: -- conveying to the Russian Government the fact that they have the ability to help return Mr. Snowden to the United States.
Matthew Lee: Did you tell them in the calls that you did not think that Mr. Snowden should have the opportunity to express his view?
Jen Psaki: Matt, I don’t have any readout for these – of these calls for you. We did --
Matthew Lee: Okay. Well, forget about the calls, then.
Jen Psaki: We did convey the broad point that I’ve made.
Matthew Lee: Okay. Well, then forget about what you said or what the Embassy people said in these specific phone calls. Do you believe that Mr. Snowden should not have had the opportunity to express his views at the airport in Moscow today?
Jen Psaki: Well, Matt, I think we broadly believe in free speech, as you know.
Matthew Lee: Except when it comes to this.
Jen Psaki: But we cannot look at this as a – I know we like to ask about sweeping scenarios in here, but --
Matthew Lee: No, this is not sweeping at all. This is very specific, related to one guy in one place in one city, one airport, one time. So I just – do you think that it was inappropriate for Mr. Snowden to speak publicly? Do you – I mean, not that – whether you’re disappointed in the Russians. Do you think that he should not have had the opportunity to speak publicly?
Jen Psaki: Our focus, Matt, is on how our concern about how Russian authorities clearly helped assist the ability of attendees to participate in this.
Matthew Lee: Mm-hmm.
Jen Psaki: That is of concern to us. Our focus is on returning Mr. Snowden to the United States. Beyond that, I just don’t have anything more.
Matthew Lee: Okay. I’m just – I’m trying to get – you are saying that this essentially – it wasn’t a press conference, but it might as well have been. And you don’t think the Russians should have helped to facilitate a --
Jen Psaki: Facilitated a propaganda platform for Mr. Snowden.
Matthew Lee: -- a propaganda platform. Okay. So this is, to your mind, something like them bringing out a defected spy from the Cold War and putting him on a platform and having him rail against the United States. Is that what the Administration believes?
Jen Psaki: I’m not going to draw comparisons along those lines. But let me say --
Matthew Lee: “A propaganda platform” is close enough.
Jen Psaki: -- that Mr. Snowden could – should return to the United States to face these charges that – where he will be accorded a fair trial. That’s where our focus is.
Elise Labott: Well, is this a propaganda platform or is this kind of putting in train a process for asylum? Because last week, or two weeks ago, the Russians said that they would consider his request for asylum if Mr. Snowden would stop leaking material about – or leaking information about U.S. surveillance programs. Now, he wouldn’t do that before, and he tried some other areas for asylum.
Now, in this propaganda platform, as you call it, he said that he has decided to – not to leak any more information, or he doesn’t have any more information, but he’s done. So are you concerned now that this is him accepting conditions for Russian asylum publicly as opposed to just some kind of propaganda? I mean, is that your real concern here, that these are the conditions for asylum and now he’s publicly meeting them?
Jen Psaki: Our concern here is that he’s been provided this opportunity to speak in a propaganda platform, as I mentioned a few seconds ago, that Russia has played a role in facilitating this, that others have helped elevate it. But we still believe that Russia has the opportunity to do the right thing and facilitate his return to the United States.
Elise Labott: Well, but --
Jen Psaki: I don’t have any independent knowledge, as would be no surprise, of what he has officially requested, what has officially been --
Elise Labott: Well, it’s pretty public that Russia --
Jen Psaki: -- accepted or not.
Elise Labott: Okay, but it’s pretty public that Russia said that they would consider his asylum petition if he said that – if he would agree publicly to stop leaking information. Now he’s done that.
Jen Psaki: Mm-hmm.
Elise Labott: So is that propaganda, or is that publicly agreeing to Russia’s conditions and kind of moving the asylum petition along?
Jen Psaki: I’m just not going to make an evaluation of what Russia’s conditions are and whether he meets --
Elise Labott: Well, you don’t have to make an evaluation. They’ve said it publicly.
Jen Psaki: -- let me finish – whether he meets them. That’s not the point here. The point is Russia helped facilitate this. They have the ability and the opportunity to do the right thing and help return Mr. Snowden to the United States. It’s not about what the conditions are.
Elise Labott: But you don’t – I mean, is it – I mean, your concern now is that this is – that Russia’s – by facilitating – I mean, are you really upset that this is propaganda, or are you really upset that Russia is moving closer to accepting to this guy’s asylum?
Jen Psaki: Well, we don’t know that. This is a step that was taken today. Obviously, we continue to call for his return. They have a role they can play in that. Beyond that, I’m not going to speculate what they are or aren’t going to do.
[. . .]
Matthew Lee: Can I just --
Jen Psaki: Mm-hmm.
Matthew Lee: In the conversations that the Ambassador, or whoever it was the Embassy had – not with the Human Rights people, but with the Russian Government --
Jen Psaki: Mm-hmm.
Matthew Lee: -- did you tell them that facilitating this appearance by Mr. Snowden was problematic, that you thought that they shouldn’t do it?
Jen Psaki: I --
Matthew Lee: Did you ask them not to do it?
Jen Psaki: We made our concerns and our view on Mr. Snowden clear.
Matthew Lee: No, but I – specifically about giving him this propaganda platform, as you called it.
Jen Psaki: I just – I don’t have any more to read out for you from the private phone calls, Matt, just that there – we have been in touch.
Matthew Lee: Well, I mean, did you ask the Russians, please don’t do this, we think he’s a criminal and needs to come back? Did you – did – I mean, did you ask and they rejected the request?
Jen Psaki: Well, Matt, we’ve been clear publicly --
Matthew Lee: Yeah.
Jen Psaki: -- countless times what our view is --
Matthew Lee: I understand that, but --
Jen Psaki: -- and we’ve consistently made the same points privately, today and any other day.
Matthew Lee: Right. But did you say that you would look negatively on them providing him a, quote-unquote, “propaganda platform?”
Jen Psaki: I just don’t have any more on the specifics of the calls.
Matthew Lee: Well, is the United States Government now in the business of trying to discourage people or governments from facilitating people having – meeting with human rights activists? I don’t get it.
Jen Psaki: Matt, this is not a universal position of the United States. This is an individual --
Matthew Lee: So it’s just in this one case.
Jen Psaki: -- who has been accused of three – of felony charges.
Matthew Lee: But surely – Jen --
Jen Psaki: This is not a unique --
Matthew Lee: Okay. He’s been accused. Do you remember the old line that we’re supposed to all know – he has not been convicted of anything yet.
Jen Psaki: And he can return to the United States and face the charges.
Matthew Lee: But he can also surely – people who are accused of crimes are allowed their right of free speech, are they not?
Jen Psaki: Matt, I think we’ve gone the round on this.
Elise Labott: No, I mean, it’s a legitimate question. I mean, you talk about even in Russia that journalists have been persecuted and political activists have been persecuted and you call for free speech around the world. But you’re not saying that Mr. Snowden has the right of free speech?
Jen Psaki: That’s not at all what I was saying. We believe, of course, broadly in free speech. Our concern here was that this was – there was obvious facilitation by the Russians in this case. We’ve conveyed that. We’ve conveyed our concerns. I’m saying them publicly.
Elise Labott: So you’re upset – you’re not upset about the press conference; you’re upset that the Russians facilitated it.
Jen Psaki: We certainly are upset that there was a platform for an individual who’s been accused of felony crimes.
Elise Labott: But what does that matter, really? I mean, people that are in jail or are on trial in the United States, they give press conferences or they speak out all the time. I mean, it sounds to me like what you’re not really upset with the act that he spoke; you’re upset with the fact that the Russians did something on his behalf.
Jen Psaki: I think I’ve expressed what we’re upset about.
Elise Labott: I don’t --
Jen Psaki: And you keep saying what we’re upset about. But I think I’ve made clear what we’re upset about.
RECOMMENDED: "22 deaths"
"I Hate The War"
"Iraq snapshot"
"Protests continue"
"Waiting For Snowden"
"Black Bean and Corn Salad in the Kitchen"
"Justin Raimondo's great column"
"All those problems"
"newsroom"
"Nuland and Benghazi"
"Kurt Cobain is dead (tell Mojo)"
"Bradley"
"Cinema Retro"
"Ginny Brown calls Pilger out"
"We are Ed Snowden"
"Barry insists he thought the job was just posing"
"THIS JUST IN! HE'S SO OVERWORKED!"
IF ONLY HE WERE LESS IN LOVE WITH THE SOUND OF HIS OWN VOICE!
ONE OF THE BIGGEST CRISES IN THE U.S. MILITARY TODAY IS RAPE AND ASSAULT.
CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O ELECTED TO SPEAK OUT ON THE TOPIC AND, IN DOING SO, HE MAY HAVE PREJUDICED MANY ONGOING CASES.
REACHED FOR COMMENT BY THESE REPORTERS, BARRY O LAUGHED AND SAID, "WELL, EVERYONE'S ALLOWED ONE MISTAKE."
YEAH. ONE.
NOT A MILLION AND ONE.
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
This morning, the world waited to hear from NSA whistle-blower Ed Snowden as media poured into the Moscow airport in anticipation of what the person who has influenced a global dialogue might say next. Ahead of his appearing, BBC News notes, "The American is believed to have been stuck in transit since arriving in Moscow from Hong Kong on 23 June, even though no pictures of his stay there have emerged."
Lidia Kelly and Alessandra Prentice (Reuters) report, "Former intelligence agency contractor Edward Snowden asked to meet human rights groups at a Moscow airport on Friday to discuss what he called 'threatening behaviour' by the United States to prevent him gaining asylum."
Ed Snowden: My name is Ed Snowden. A little over one month ago, I had family, a home in paradise, and I lived in great comfort. I also had the capability without any warrant to search for, seize, and read your communications. Anyone’s communications at any time. That is the power to change people’s fates.
It is also a serious violation of the law. The 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution of my country, Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and numerous statutes and treaties forbid such systems of massive, pervasive surveillance. While the US Constitution marks these programs as illegal, my government argues that secret court rulings, which the world is not permitted to see, somehow legitimize an illegal affair. These rulings simply corrupt the most basic notion of justice – that it must be seen to be done. The immoral cannot be made moral through the use of secret law.
I believe in the principle declared at Nuremberg in 1945: "Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience. Therefore individual citizens have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring."
Accordingly, I did what I believed right and began a campaign to correct this wrongdoing. I did not seek to enrich myself. I did not seek to sell US secrets. I did not partner with any foreign government to guarantee my safety. Instead, I took what I knew to the public, so what affects all of us can be discussed by all of us in the light of day, and I asked the world for justice.
That moral decision to tell the public about spying that affects all of us has been costly, but it was the right thing to do and I have no regrets.
Since that time, the government and intelligence services of the United States of America have attempted to make an example of me, a warning to all others who might speak out as I have. I have been made stateless and hounded for my act of political expression. The United States Government has placed me on no-fly lists. It demanded Hong Kong return me outside of the framework of its laws, in direct violation of the principle of non-refoulement – the Law of Nations. It has threatened with sanctions countries who would stand up for my human rights and the UN asylum system. It has even taken the unprecedented step of ordering military allies to ground a Latin American president’s plane in search for a political refugee. These dangerous escalations represent a threat not just to the dignity of Latin America, but to the basic rights shared by every person, every nation, to live free from persecution, and to seek and enjoy asylum.
Yet even in the face of this historically disproportionate aggression, countries around the world have offered support and asylum. These nations, including Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador have my gratitude and respect for being the first to stand against human rights violations carried out by the powerful rather than the powerless. By refusing to compromise their principles in the face of intimidation, they have earned the respect of the world. It is my intention to travel to each of these countries to extend my personal thanks to their people and leaders.
I announce today my formal acceptance of all offers of support or asylum I have been extended and all others that may be offered in the future. With, for example, the grant of asylum provided by Venezuela’s President Maduro, my asylee status is now formal, and no state has a basis by which to limit or interfere with my right to enjoy that asylum. As we have seen, however, some governments in Western European and North American states have demonstrated a willingness to act outside the law, and this behavior persists today. This unlawful threat makes it impossible for me to travel to Latin America and enjoy the asylum granted there in accordance with our shared rights.
This willingness by powerful states to act extra-legally represents a threat to all of us, and must not be allowed to succeed. Accordingly, I ask for your assistance in requesting guarantees of safe passage from the relevant nations in securing my travel to Latin America, as well as requesting asylum in Russia until such time as these states accede to law and my legal travel is permitted. I will be submitting my request to Russia today, and hope it will be accepted favorably.
On the above, it's cute to watch the reaction of the press. Michael Hirsh (National Journal) wrote a ridiculous article blaming Ed for the circus that surrounds him -- that would be the press circus and Hirsh needs to learn to hold his own industry accountable or stop pointing the fingers at others. If he's not getting how useless the press is being, he can examine how they covered the above with so many focusing on Ed's name. Telegraph of London, "Snowden, apparently wants to be called Ed, not Edward." Forbes: "[. . .] letting them know that 1) he prefers to be called Ed, and 2) he's ready to get out of there" -- and we could go on and on.
So, Michael Hirsh, who's causing the circus? Not Ed. And the press can't even be honest about the issue of the name.
We never called Ed Snowden anything but "Ed Snowden." Dropping back to the June 11th snapshot:
Strange times in Portland, Maine
Lobsters dancing on the docks
Switzerland's been weird since they unplugged the clocks
Man and a woman in Brooklyn Heights
Each convinced the other's in the wrong
While last year the divorce rate tripled in Hong Kong
If through all the madness
We can stick together
We're safe and sound
The world's just inside out and upside down
-- "Safe and Sound," written by Jacob Brackman and Carly Simon, first appears on Carly's Hotcakes
The world is inside out and upside down these days. In even the most basic ways. Take Ed Snowden, the whistle-blower who exposed the programs Barack and Clapper are currently defending, and take Nashwan Abdulrazaq Abdulbagi. By the 'press rule,' Ed Snowden's name is "Edward Snowden." Stan wrote last night about how the press stripped Glen King of his name and insisted he be called Rodney King. Ed Snowden is very clear in the Guardian video interview that his name is Ed Snowden. That is how he identifies himself. The New York Times identifying him as "Edward Snowden" is not surprising to me. That people on the left go along with it surprises me.
How much more clear is it than someone identifying themselves on video as the NSA whistle-blower and stating their name as "Ed Snowden"? The press has refused to call him by his name. Today, he again stated his name. And the press wants to pretend this is something new or novel -- as opposed to the reality that they got it wrong for over a month now.
There was a great deal to address. At the State Dept press briefing today, Associated Press' Matthew Lee and CNN's Elise Labott attempted to address the issues. It was not a proud moment for Jen Psaki or for the State Dept.
Matthew Lee: Can we start in Russia –
Jen Psaki: Mm-hmm.
Matthew Lee: -- with Mr. Snowden? I’m wondering if, since he has now asked the Russians for asylum, there has been any contact between this building and the Russians about your feelings about his status.
Jen Psaki: Well, I can tell you – I hadn’t seen – or I don’t have independent confirmation, I guess I should say, about any request he’s made. I can tell you that we have been in touch, of course, with Russian officials. Our Embassy in Moscow has been in direct contact on the ground. We are disappointed that Russian officials and agencies facilitated this meeting today by allowing these activists and representatives into the Moscow airport’s transit zone to meet with Mr. Snowden despite the government’s declarations of Russia’s neutrality with respect to Mr. Snowden.
Matthew Lee: So I’m sorry. You’re disappointed that they let someone into their own airport?
Jen Psaki: Well –
Matthew Lee: I don’t get it.
Jen Psaki: Well, that they facilitated this event, of course.
Matthew Lee: Well, why?
Jen Psaki: Because this gave a forum for –
Matthew Lee: You don’t think that he should have a forum? Has he – he’s forfeited his right to freedom of speech as well?
Jen Psaki: Well, Matt, Mr. Snowden –
Matthew Lee: All right.
Jen Psaki: -- as we’ve talked about – let me just state this –
Matthew Lee: Okay.
Jen Psaki: -- because I think it’s important. He’s not a whistleblower. He’s not a human rights activist. He’s wanted in a series of serious criminal charges brought in the eastern district of Virginia and the United States.
Matthew Lee: Okay. I’m sorry. But I didn’t realize people who were wanted on charges forfeited their right to speech – to free speech. I also didn’t realize that people who were not whistleblowers or not human rights activists, as you say he is not, that they forfeited their rights to speak, so I don’t understand why you’re disappointed with the Russians, but neither that – leave that aside for a second. The group WikiLeaks put out a transcript, I guess, essentially, of Mr. – what Mr. Snowden said at the airport. At the top of that transcript, it contained – it said that the Human Rights Watch representative from Human Rights Watch, researcher who went to this thing, while she was on her way to the airport, got a phone call from the American Ambassador asking her to relay a message to Mr. Snowden that – basically the message that you just gave here, that, one, he is not a whistleblower, and, two, that he is wanted in the United States. Is that correct?
Jen Psaki: It is not correct. First, Ambassador McFaul did not call any representative from Human Rights Watch. An embassy officer did call to explain our position, certainly, that I just reiterated here for all of you today, but at no point did this official or any official from the U.S. Government ask anyone to convey a message to Mr. Snowden.
Matthew Lee: Did anyone from the Embassy call any of the other groups – representatives of groups that were going to this meeting – that you understood were going to this meeting?
Jen Psaki: As I’m sure would be no surprise, and as you know because we even had a civil society event when the Secretary was there, we are in regular touch, as we have been today. I don’t have an update on the exact list of calls, though, for you.
Matthew Lee: But you can say pretty conclusively that this one call did happen, and that it wasn’t the Ambassador. So were there others? Do you know?
Jen Psaki: We have –
Matthew Lee: Did calls go to other groups?
Jen Psaki: -- been in touch with –
Matthew Lee: Okay.
Jen Psaki: -- attendees.
Matthew Lee: Yes.
Jen Psaki: I don’t have any specifics for you, though.
Matthew Lee: Okay. And the – and you have made no secret of the fact that any country or government that gives Mr. Snowden asylum or allows him to transit through, that there would be some serious consequences for – grave consequences in their relationship with the United States.
Jen Psaki: Mm-hmm.
Matthew Lee: Have you made the same – and presumably that would apply to individuals who would help him stay – help him avoid returning here to face justice. Is that – that’s correct?
Jen Psaki: I’m not sure what that exactly means.
Matthew Lee: Well, I’m – what I’m getting at is these groups, the human rights groups that are respected human rights groups –
Jen Psaki: : Mm-hmm.
Matthew Lee: -- which you yourself, as well as previous spokespeople have quoted from –
Jen Psaki: Mm-hmm.
Matthew Lee: -- in relation to other situations, have taken a side in support of Mr. Snowden, and I’m wondering if there are any consequences for them if you – if they aid and abet Mr. Snowden in staying away – out of the reach of U.S. authorities.
Jen Psaki: Well, we obviously don’t think this was a proper forum or a proper elevation of him. Beyond that, the way that I think it’s been asked, but also the way we’ve thought about it, is more about governments and our relationships with them and their aid or decisions to aid Mr. Snowden.
Matthew Lee: Right, but I guess the question is: If you think this was an inappropriate forum, did you try to dissuade these groups from going there?
Jen Psaki: From attending?
Matthew Lee: Yeah.
Jen Psaki: Not that I’m aware of, Matt. Obviously –
Matthew Lee: Okay. So the call –
Jen Psaki: -- they were invited to attend.
Matthew Lee: So the calls were just a reminder of your position. Did you say to Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International that if you guys help Mr. Snowden, support him in some way so that – to keep him from facing justice back in the United States, that there would be consequences for them?
Jen Psaki: I don’t have any readouts of these calls. Our focus remains on –
Matthew Lee: Okay. Well, then can you say –
Jen Psaki: -- conveying to the Russian Government the fact that they have the ability to help return Mr. Snowden to the United States.
Matthew Lee: Did you tell them in the calls that you did not think that Mr. Snowden should have the opportunity to express his view?
Jen Psaki: Matt, I don’t have any readout for these – of these calls for you. We did --
Matthew Lee: Okay. Well, forget about the calls, then.
Jen Psaki: We did convey the broad point that I’ve made.
Matthew Lee: Okay. Well, then forget about what you said or what the Embassy people said in these specific phone calls. Do you believe that Mr. Snowden should not have had the opportunity to express his views at the airport in Moscow today?
Jen Psaki: Well, Matt, I think we broadly believe in free speech, as you know.
Matthew Lee: Except when it comes to this.
Jen Psaki: But we cannot look at this as a – I know we like to ask about sweeping scenarios in here, but --
Matthew Lee: No, this is not sweeping at all. This is very specific, related to one guy in one place in one city, one airport, one time. So I just – do you think that it was inappropriate for Mr. Snowden to speak publicly? Do you – I mean, not that – whether you’re disappointed in the Russians. Do you think that he should not have had the opportunity to speak publicly?
Jen Psaki: Our focus, Matt, is on how our concern about how Russian authorities clearly helped assist the ability of attendees to participate in this.
Matthew Lee: Mm-hmm.
Jen Psaki: That is of concern to us. Our focus is on returning Mr. Snowden to the United States. Beyond that, I just don’t have anything more.
Matthew Lee: Okay. I’m just – I’m trying to get – you are saying that this essentially – it wasn’t a press conference, but it might as well have been. And you don’t think the Russians should have helped to facilitate a --
Jen Psaki: Facilitated a propaganda platform for Mr. Snowden.
Matthew Lee: -- a propaganda platform. Okay. So this is, to your mind, something like them bringing out a defected spy from the Cold War and putting him on a platform and having him rail against the United States. Is that what the Administration believes?
Jen Psaki: I’m not going to draw comparisons along those lines. But let me say --
Matthew Lee: “A propaganda platform” is close enough.
Jen Psaki: -- that Mr. Snowden could – should return to the United States to face these charges that – where he will be accorded a fair trial. That’s where our focus is.
Elise Labott: Well, is this a propaganda platform or is this kind of putting in train a process for asylum? Because last week, or two weeks ago, the Russians said that they would consider his request for asylum if Mr. Snowden would stop leaking material about – or leaking information about U.S. surveillance programs. Now, he wouldn’t do that before, and he tried some other areas for asylum.
Now, in this propaganda platform, as you call it, he said that he has decided to – not to leak any more information, or he doesn’t have any more information, but he’s done. So are you concerned now that this is him accepting conditions for Russian asylum publicly as opposed to just some kind of propaganda? I mean, is that your real concern here, that these are the conditions for asylum and now he’s publicly meeting them?
Jen Psaki: Our concern here is that he’s been provided this opportunity to speak in a propaganda platform, as I mentioned a few seconds ago, that Russia has played a role in facilitating this, that others have helped elevate it. But we still believe that Russia has the opportunity to do the right thing and facilitate his return to the United States.
Elise Labott: Well, but --
Jen Psaki: I don’t have any independent knowledge, as would be no surprise, of what he has officially requested, what has officially been --
Elise Labott: Well, it’s pretty public that Russia --
Jen Psaki: -- accepted or not.
Elise Labott: Okay, but it’s pretty public that Russia said that they would consider his asylum petition if he said that – if he would agree publicly to stop leaking information. Now he’s done that.
Jen Psaki: Mm-hmm.
Elise Labott: So is that propaganda, or is that publicly agreeing to Russia’s conditions and kind of moving the asylum petition along?
Jen Psaki: I’m just not going to make an evaluation of what Russia’s conditions are and whether he meets --
Elise Labott: Well, you don’t have to make an evaluation. They’ve said it publicly.
Jen Psaki: -- let me finish – whether he meets them. That’s not the point here. The point is Russia helped facilitate this. They have the ability and the opportunity to do the right thing and help return Mr. Snowden to the United States. It’s not about what the conditions are.
Elise Labott: But you don’t – I mean, is it – I mean, your concern now is that this is – that Russia’s – by facilitating – I mean, are you really upset that this is propaganda, or are you really upset that Russia is moving closer to accepting to this guy’s asylum?
Jen Psaki: Well, we don’t know that. This is a step that was taken today. Obviously, we continue to call for his return. They have a role they can play in that. Beyond that, I’m not going to speculate what they are or aren’t going to do.
[. . .]
Matthew Lee: Can I just --
Jen Psaki: Mm-hmm.
Matthew Lee: In the conversations that the Ambassador, or whoever it was the Embassy had – not with the Human Rights people, but with the Russian Government --
Jen Psaki: Mm-hmm.
Matthew Lee: -- did you tell them that facilitating this appearance by Mr. Snowden was problematic, that you thought that they shouldn’t do it?
Jen Psaki: I --
Matthew Lee: Did you ask them not to do it?
Jen Psaki: We made our concerns and our view on Mr. Snowden clear.
Matthew Lee: No, but I – specifically about giving him this propaganda platform, as you called it.
Jen Psaki: I just – I don’t have any more to read out for you from the private phone calls, Matt, just that there – we have been in touch.
Matthew Lee: Well, I mean, did you ask the Russians, please don’t do this, we think he’s a criminal and needs to come back? Did you – did – I mean, did you ask and they rejected the request?
Jen Psaki: Well, Matt, we’ve been clear publicly --
Matthew Lee: Yeah.
Jen Psaki: -- countless times what our view is --
Matthew Lee: I understand that, but --
Jen Psaki: -- and we’ve consistently made the same points privately, today and any other day.
Matthew Lee: Right. But did you say that you would look negatively on them providing him a, quote-unquote, “propaganda platform?”
Jen Psaki: I just don’t have any more on the specifics of the calls.
Matthew Lee: Well, is the United States Government now in the business of trying to discourage people or governments from facilitating people having – meeting with human rights activists? I don’t get it.
Jen Psaki: Matt, this is not a universal position of the United States. This is an individual --
Matthew Lee: So it’s just in this one case.
Jen Psaki: -- who has been accused of three – of felony charges.
Matthew Lee: But surely – Jen --
Jen Psaki: This is not a unique --
Matthew Lee: Okay. He’s been accused. Do you remember the old line that we’re supposed to all know – he has not been convicted of anything yet.
Jen Psaki: And he can return to the United States and face the charges.
Matthew Lee: But he can also surely – people who are accused of crimes are allowed their right of free speech, are they not?
Jen Psaki: Matt, I think we’ve gone the round on this.
Elise Labott: No, I mean, it’s a legitimate question. I mean, you talk about even in Russia that journalists have been persecuted and political activists have been persecuted and you call for free speech around the world. But you’re not saying that Mr. Snowden has the right of free speech?
Jen Psaki: That’s not at all what I was saying. We believe, of course, broadly in free speech. Our concern here was that this was – there was obvious facilitation by the Russians in this case. We’ve conveyed that. We’ve conveyed our concerns. I’m saying them publicly.
Elise Labott: So you’re upset – you’re not upset about the press conference; you’re upset that the Russians facilitated it.
Jen Psaki: We certainly are upset that there was a platform for an individual who’s been accused of felony crimes.
Elise Labott: But what does that matter, really? I mean, people that are in jail or are on trial in the United States, they give press conferences or they speak out all the time. I mean, it sounds to me like what you’re not really upset with the act that he spoke; you’re upset with the fact that the Russians did something on his behalf.
Jen Psaki: I think I’ve expressed what we’re upset about.
Elise Labott: I don’t --
Jen Psaki: And you keep saying what we’re upset about. But I think I’ve made clear what we’re upset about.
RECOMMENDED: "22 deaths"
"I Hate The War"
"Iraq snapshot"
"Protests continue"
"Waiting For Snowden"
"Black Bean and Corn Salad in the Kitchen"
"Justin Raimondo's great column"
"All those problems"
"newsroom"
"Nuland and Benghazi"
"Kurt Cobain is dead (tell Mojo)"
"Bradley"
"Cinema Retro"
"Ginny Brown calls Pilger out"
"We are Ed Snowden"
"Barry insists he thought the job was just posing"
"THIS JUST IN! HE'S SO OVERWORKED!"
Friday, July 12, 2013
Barry insists he thought the job was just posing
BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
44% OF AMERICANS APPROVE OF THE 'JOB' BARRY O IS DOING WHILE 48% DISAPPROVE.
REACHED FOR COMMENT THIS MORNING, A SOBBING BARRY O INFORMED THESE REPORTERS, "ALL I EVER AGREED TO DO WAS WHAT I DID WHILE CAMPAIGNING, SMILE, WAIVE TO THE CAMERA, GO SHIRTLESS. NOW THEY WANT TO GIVE ME ADDITIONAL JOB DUTIES! I'M OVERTAXED AS IT IS!"
INDEED.
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Monday April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks released military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7, 2010, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported in August 2010 that Manning had been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring classified information to his personal computer between November and May and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of classified information." In March, 2011, David S. Cloud (Los Angeles Times) reported that the military has added 22 additional counts to the charges including one that could be seen as "aiding the enemy" which could result in the death penalty if convicted. The Article 32 hearing took place in December. At the start of this year, there was an Article 32 hearing and, February 3rd, it was announced that the government would be moving forward with a court-martial. Bradley has yet to enter a plea. The court-martial was supposed to begin before the November 2012 election but it was postponed until after the election so that Barack wouldn't have to run on a record of his actual actions. Independent.ie adds, "A court martial is set to be held in June at Ford Meade in Maryland, with supporters treating him as a hero, but opponents describing him as a traitor." February 28th, Bradley admitted he leaked to WikiLeaks. And why.
Bradley Manning: In attempting to conduct counter-terrorism or CT and counter-insurgency COIN operations we became obsessed with capturing and killing human targets on lists and not being suspicious of and avoiding cooperation with our Host Nation partners, and ignoring the second and third order effects of accomplishing short-term goals and missions. I believe that if the general public, especially the American public, had access to the information contained within the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A tables this could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general as [missed word] as it related to Iraq and Afghanistan.
I also believed the detailed analysis of the data over a long period of time by different sectors of society might cause society to reevaluate the need or even the desire to even to engage in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations that ignore the complex dynamics of the people living in the effected environment everyday.
2010. Not 2008. Not 2007. 2010. Barack's in office, that's one of the key reasons that date is important. There's another there. This is Thomas Gaist (WSWS) report on Monday's proceedings:
While Manning’s defense team made arguments Monday presenting his decision to leak classified documents as motivated by concern for the well-being of the United States, its military, and the Iraqi people, Lind’s ruling prevents the defense from basing their case on the defendant’s principled opposition to US policies.
On Monday, the defense called Lauren McNamara, a woman who corresponded with Manning during the period when he made the leaks. She testified that he was “concerned with saving the lives of families in foreign countries” and that he “considered human life to be valuable above all.” McNamara quoted from her correspondence with Manning, reading his statement that was “concerned about making sure that everyone, soldiers, marines, contractors, even the local nationals, get home to their families.”
US Army sergeant David Sadtler, who oversaw Manning’s intelligence work, testified that Manning was angered by the jailing of 15 Iraqi civilians, with US approval, for distributing written material criticizing the government. “He was upset at the situation,” Sadtler said. Previously, Manning stated before the court that the Iraqis involved had no ties to the armed resistance against the US occupation, and that their materials contained a “scholarly critique” of the current regime.
2010. The Reuters video got attention. That was really it from our 'alternative' media in the US (The Nation, Democracy Now, etc.).
The issue wasn't the video. The video was from Bully Boy Bush's time in the White House.
What worried and bothered the White House was what Brad did that people might notice at any point. They didn't notice (and I only noticed it yesterday after hearing for the third time this month from a White House friend that the Reuters video didn't really matter). There were many Iraq revelations (and others but our focus is Iraq) from Brad's leaks. And we covered them here. Unlike 'live blogger' Gregg Mitchell who had no interest until Julian Assange encountered legal problems.
Ned Parker is a journalist with the Los Angeles Times. He's done great reporting in Iraq. And it's that reporting that has a lot to do with 2010. We've repeatedly asked, "Why did the administration back Nouri after Parker had repeatedly exposed Nouri's use of secret prisons?"
Brad angered the White House by ripping away the final veil.
2010. In February 2010, Brad begins leaking to WikiLeaks in part because of fear of the way the Iraqi people are being treated, especially those whose only 'crime' is speaking out against Nouri.
But if Brad knows these things, then so does our US government. Brad didn't share his notebook spiral of poetry with WikiLeaks, he shared government documents.
He began sharing government documents on Iraq in February 2010 and was clearly done sharing by May 2010 (at the end of May is when he was arrested). This isn't minor, this goes to why he needs to be silenced.
Nouri didn't win re-election to a second term as prime minister. A month after Brad began leaking, March 2010, is when Iraq holds parliamentary elections. Nouri disputes the results so the intimidated IHEC (Independent High Electoral Commission) tosses a few votes he didn't earn his way in the recounts but can't toss enough his way to allow his State of Law to come in first.
Iraqiya came in first. What followed was Nouri stomping his feet like a spoiled child and throwing a tantrum, refusing to step down and bringing the country to a political halt -- a political stalemate that lasted over eight months. How did he get away with it? The White House backed him.
The White House didn't back democracy, didn't back the Iraqi people, didn't back the Iraqi Constitution, it backed Nouri.
And we've decried that here in real time and since. We've pointed out that Ned Parker was doing exposes on secret prisons Nouri was running and the torture taking place there.
(And credit to the Guardian who, by the summer of 2010 was also noting the White House involvement. For the longest time, we were the only ones noting it.)
But until repeated hints from a White House friend this month, I wasn't connecting Brad to this time period.
Brad's revelations are even more important than Ned Parker's excellent reporting. Brad's revelations go to the fact that Barack and his underlings were not learning from the press of Nouri's corruption, of Nouri's targeting people because they criticized him. They knew it from their own US government reports.
In 2006, we began noting here that the US State Dept was noting how paranoid Nouri was. Brad's 2010 release included State Dept cables and that included Nouri and his paranoia. There wasn't a great deal about Iraq in the WikiLeaks publications that surprised us in terms of Iraq because we'd already noted a number of things as they happened. And that may be why the obvious escaped me or maybe just because I can be a real idiot sometimes.
But that is why the White House was furious about the leaks in terms of Iraq.
Let's again note John Barry's "'The Engame' Is A Well Researched, Highly Critical Look at U.S. Policy in Iraq" (Daily Beast):
Washington has little political and no military influence over these developments [in Iraq]. As Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor charge in their ambitious new history of the Iraq war, The Endgame, Obama's administration sacrificed political influence by failing in 2010 to insist that the results of Iraq’s first proper election be honored: "When the Obama administration acquiesced in the questionable judicial opinion that prevented Ayad Allawi's bloc, after it had won the most seats in 2010, from the first attempt at forming a new government, it undermined the prospects, however slim, for a compromise that might have led to a genuinely inclusive and cross-sectarian government."
The White House decision to back Nouri is why he could bring the country to a halt for over eight months after the elections and refuse to step down as prime minister. It was Barack that ordered the US-brokered contract (The Erbil Agreement). As the Constitution outlined things, Nouri couldn't be prime minister. So the White House had to do something extra-Constitutional to go around it. The Erbil Agreement is a contract among leaders of the various political blocs. Nouri signed it as leader of State of Law and agreeing to various terms, conditions and concessions if he could have a second term. The other leaders came up with their wish-list in exchange for giving Nouri a second term.
The US government knew the score. That's what Brad's leaks make clear. So they likely knew that Nouri would use The Erbil Agreement to get his second term and then trash it and refuse to honor it. But while they likely knew that, they absolutely knew he was a tyrant.
And yet they backed him.
Let's go back to Thomas Gaist (WSWS):
While Manning’s defense team made arguments Monday presenting his decision to leak classified documents as motivated by concern for the well-being of the United States, its military, and the Iraqi people, Lind’s ruling prevents the defense from basing their case on the defendant’s principled opposition to US policies.
On Monday, the defense called Lauren McNamara, a woman who corresponded with Manning during the period when he made the leaks. She testified that he was “concerned with saving the lives of families in foreign countries” and that he “considered human life to be valuable above all.” McNamara quoted from her correspondence with Manning, reading his statement that was “concerned about making sure that everyone, soldiers, marines, contractors, even the local nationals, get home to their families.”
US Army sergeant David Sadtler, who oversaw Manning’s intelligence work, testified that Manning was angered by the jailing of 15 Iraqi civilians, with US approval, for distributing written material criticizing the government. “He was upset at the situation,” Sadtler said. Previously, Manning stated before the court that the Iraqis involved had no ties to the armed resistance against the US occupation, and that their materials contained a “scholarly critique” of the current regime.
Manning’s pre-trial statement shows that he was motivated by a growing consciousness of the criminal character of US foreign policy. In the statement, delivered to the military judge in February, the soldier asserted that his actions were intended to initiate a process of “worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms.”
Referring to politically motivated roundups carried out with full US support by the Iraqi regime, Manning said, “I knew that if I continued to assist the Baghdad Federal Police in identifying the political opponents of Prime Minister al-Maliki, those people would be arrested and in the custody of the Baghdad Federal Police and very likely tortured and not seen again for a very long time, if ever.”
Brad knew that and so did the US government, so did the White House. So what you have with the 2010 elections is no longer just a crime against democracy, it's a partnership in torture and abuse. The White House was not surprised by how awful Nouri is, they knew more than anyone, more than Ned Parker, just what he was doing and that's in the documents that Brad released.
They overrode the will of the people to give a tyrant who tortures a second term and they did that not out of political naivete, they did it with their eyes wide open and fully aware of what a second term would mean for the Iraqi people.
Brad's Iraq revelations -- poorly covered in real time -- strip away the illusions and reveal a White House aware of how vindictive and cruel Nouri was, how torture was his immediate answer for everything, and despite this (or because of this) the White House backed Nouri al-Maliki for a second term when even the Iraqi people had rejected him.
This is the fraud who won the Nobel Peace Prize being exposed as a liar and Tricky Dick Nixon willing to destroy an entire people. No wonder Barack declared Brad guilty
Here's the Bradley Manning Support Network's transcript of Barack declaring Brad guilty:
Logan Price: [Shaking hand] Mr. President, why didn’t you talk about Bradley Manning?
Obama: Look, there are better ways and more appropriate ways to bring this up than interrupting and causing a scene…
LP: I understand. That’s why I am asking you now. I wasn’t singing or chanting and I want to know. I am really concerned because I think he is the most important whistle-blower of my generation. Why is he being prosecuted?
Obama: Well, what he did was irresponsible and risked the lives of service-members abroad… he did a lot of damage… [begin video] so people can have philosophical views on…
LP: But I haven’t seen any evidence of that, and how can you say that the leaks did more harm than good? What about their effect on the democratic revolutions in the Arab world? …and isn’t this going to help the war on terror?
Obama: No, no, no, but look, I can’t conduct diplomacy on an open source… That’s not how the world works. And if you’re in the military… And I have to abide by certain rules of classified information. If I were to release material I weren’t allowed to, I’d be breaking the law. We’re a nation of laws! We don’t let individuals make their own decisions about how the laws operate…No he’s being fine. He is being courteous and asking questions. [ This was because the Secret Service was tugging on my shirt sleeve by this point]
LP: But didn’t he have a responsibility to expose.. [war crimes]
Obama: He broke the law!
LP: Well, you can make the law harder to break, but what he did was tell us the truth.
Obama: What he did was he dumped…
LP: But Nixon tried to prosecute Daniel Ellsberg for the same thing and he is a … [hero]
Obama: No it isn’t the same thing…What Ellsberg released wasn’t classified in the same way.
As the transcript (or video) makes clear, Barack was becoming a little unhinged on the topic. Why? Because the leaks do more than anything else to reveal how little Barack cares about human rights, how little value he placed on the safety of the Iraqi people, how eager to get in bed with despots and tyrants he was. This isn't 'change,' or a Nobel Peace Prize. This is actually criminal behavior. Interfering with a country's election and electoral process to ensure that the tyrant the people just deposed will not be leaving office.
October 22nd 2010, WikiLeaks published the Iraq War Logs. They'd had them for months and it's a shame they weren't able to publish them before October 22nd. The Erbil Agreement was already being negotiated and, November 10, 2010, would be finalized. From the November 11, 2010 snapshot:
Today the KRG website announces:
Baghdad, Iraq (KRP.org) - Iraq's political leaders yesterday agreed to hold the parliamentary session as scheduled on Thursday and to name an individual for the post of Speaker of the the parliament (Council of Representatives). The Speaker post will go to the Al-Iraqiya bloc, which is headed by former prime minister Ayad Allawi.
During the meeting, which was attended by the leaders of all the winning blocs at President Masoud Barzani's Baghdad headquarters, agreement was reached on two other points: to create a council for strategic policy and to address issues regarding national reconciliation.
President Barzani, who sponsored the three days' round of meetings, stated that today's agreement was a big achievement for Iraqis. He expressed optimism that the next government will be formed soon and that it will be inclusive and representative of all of Iraq's communities.
Martin Chulov (Guardian) reports one hiccup in the process today involved Ayad Allawi who US President Barack Obama phoned asking/pleading that he accept the deal because "his rejection of post would be a vote of no confidence". Ben Lando, Sam Dagher and Margaret Coker (Wall St. Journal) confirm the phone call via two sources and state Allawi will take the post -- newly created -- of chair of the National Council On Higher Policy: "Mr. Obama, in his phone call to Mr. Allawi on Thursday, promised to throw U.S. weight behind the process and guarantee that the council would retain meaningful and legal power, according to the two officials with knowledge of the phone call."
What Brad revealed was the Barack Obama administration got into bed with a man they knew was a tyrant. Even though the Iraqi people wanted him out of office, the White House fought to keep him. And since they knew exactly how vindictive, paranoid and violent he was, that makes the US government culpable in the violence that's followed in Nouri's second term. Brad's revelations destroyed their attempt to have plausible deniability on this issue.
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"An average of 22.6 violent deaths a day so far in ..."
"Can someone drive NPR's Carrie Johnson to the free..."
"The Heat"
"CBS makes a stupid mistake"
"The Wolverine"
"what the hell?"
"Victoria Nuland indirectly confirms CIA arming 'rebels' out of Benghazi"
"Janis Ian"
"Olivia Flores Alvarez has Tyler Perry's number"
"The Big Wedding"
"Barack Renews The Patriot Act"
"Barack's little leak"
"Crazy Barry swears no one can beat his prices!"
"THIS JUST IN! PRICE TAGS ON EVERYTHING!"
44% OF AMERICANS APPROVE OF THE 'JOB' BARRY O IS DOING WHILE 48% DISAPPROVE.
REACHED FOR COMMENT THIS MORNING, A SOBBING BARRY O INFORMED THESE REPORTERS, "ALL I EVER AGREED TO DO WAS WHAT I DID WHILE CAMPAIGNING, SMILE, WAIVE TO THE CAMERA, GO SHIRTLESS. NOW THEY WANT TO GIVE ME ADDITIONAL JOB DUTIES! I'M OVERTAXED AS IT IS!"
INDEED.
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Monday April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks released military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7, 2010, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported in August 2010 that Manning had been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring classified information to his personal computer between November and May and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of classified information." In March, 2011, David S. Cloud (Los Angeles Times) reported that the military has added 22 additional counts to the charges including one that could be seen as "aiding the enemy" which could result in the death penalty if convicted. The Article 32 hearing took place in December. At the start of this year, there was an Article 32 hearing and, February 3rd, it was announced that the government would be moving forward with a court-martial. Bradley has yet to enter a plea. The court-martial was supposed to begin before the November 2012 election but it was postponed until after the election so that Barack wouldn't have to run on a record of his actual actions. Independent.ie adds, "A court martial is set to be held in June at Ford Meade in Maryland, with supporters treating him as a hero, but opponents describing him as a traitor." February 28th, Bradley admitted he leaked to WikiLeaks. And why.
Bradley Manning: In attempting to conduct counter-terrorism or CT and counter-insurgency COIN operations we became obsessed with capturing and killing human targets on lists and not being suspicious of and avoiding cooperation with our Host Nation partners, and ignoring the second and third order effects of accomplishing short-term goals and missions. I believe that if the general public, especially the American public, had access to the information contained within the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A tables this could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general as [missed word] as it related to Iraq and Afghanistan.
I also believed the detailed analysis of the data over a long period of time by different sectors of society might cause society to reevaluate the need or even the desire to even to engage in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations that ignore the complex dynamics of the people living in the effected environment everyday.
2010. Not 2008. Not 2007. 2010. Barack's in office, that's one of the key reasons that date is important. There's another there. This is Thomas Gaist (WSWS) report on Monday's proceedings:
While Manning’s defense team made arguments Monday presenting his decision to leak classified documents as motivated by concern for the well-being of the United States, its military, and the Iraqi people, Lind’s ruling prevents the defense from basing their case on the defendant’s principled opposition to US policies.
On Monday, the defense called Lauren McNamara, a woman who corresponded with Manning during the period when he made the leaks. She testified that he was “concerned with saving the lives of families in foreign countries” and that he “considered human life to be valuable above all.” McNamara quoted from her correspondence with Manning, reading his statement that was “concerned about making sure that everyone, soldiers, marines, contractors, even the local nationals, get home to their families.”
US Army sergeant David Sadtler, who oversaw Manning’s intelligence work, testified that Manning was angered by the jailing of 15 Iraqi civilians, with US approval, for distributing written material criticizing the government. “He was upset at the situation,” Sadtler said. Previously, Manning stated before the court that the Iraqis involved had no ties to the armed resistance against the US occupation, and that their materials contained a “scholarly critique” of the current regime.
2010. The Reuters video got attention. That was really it from our 'alternative' media in the US (The Nation, Democracy Now, etc.).
The issue wasn't the video. The video was from Bully Boy Bush's time in the White House.
What worried and bothered the White House was what Brad did that people might notice at any point. They didn't notice (and I only noticed it yesterday after hearing for the third time this month from a White House friend that the Reuters video didn't really matter). There were many Iraq revelations (and others but our focus is Iraq) from Brad's leaks. And we covered them here. Unlike 'live blogger' Gregg Mitchell who had no interest until Julian Assange encountered legal problems.
Ned Parker is a journalist with the Los Angeles Times. He's done great reporting in Iraq. And it's that reporting that has a lot to do with 2010. We've repeatedly asked, "Why did the administration back Nouri after Parker had repeatedly exposed Nouri's use of secret prisons?"
Brad angered the White House by ripping away the final veil.
2010. In February 2010, Brad begins leaking to WikiLeaks in part because of fear of the way the Iraqi people are being treated, especially those whose only 'crime' is speaking out against Nouri.
But if Brad knows these things, then so does our US government. Brad didn't share his notebook spiral of poetry with WikiLeaks, he shared government documents.
He began sharing government documents on Iraq in February 2010 and was clearly done sharing by May 2010 (at the end of May is when he was arrested). This isn't minor, this goes to why he needs to be silenced.
Nouri didn't win re-election to a second term as prime minister. A month after Brad began leaking, March 2010, is when Iraq holds parliamentary elections. Nouri disputes the results so the intimidated IHEC (Independent High Electoral Commission) tosses a few votes he didn't earn his way in the recounts but can't toss enough his way to allow his State of Law to come in first.
Iraqiya came in first. What followed was Nouri stomping his feet like a spoiled child and throwing a tantrum, refusing to step down and bringing the country to a political halt -- a political stalemate that lasted over eight months. How did he get away with it? The White House backed him.
The White House didn't back democracy, didn't back the Iraqi people, didn't back the Iraqi Constitution, it backed Nouri.
And we've decried that here in real time and since. We've pointed out that Ned Parker was doing exposes on secret prisons Nouri was running and the torture taking place there.
(And credit to the Guardian who, by the summer of 2010 was also noting the White House involvement. For the longest time, we were the only ones noting it.)
But until repeated hints from a White House friend this month, I wasn't connecting Brad to this time period.
Brad's revelations are even more important than Ned Parker's excellent reporting. Brad's revelations go to the fact that Barack and his underlings were not learning from the press of Nouri's corruption, of Nouri's targeting people because they criticized him. They knew it from their own US government reports.
In 2006, we began noting here that the US State Dept was noting how paranoid Nouri was. Brad's 2010 release included State Dept cables and that included Nouri and his paranoia. There wasn't a great deal about Iraq in the WikiLeaks publications that surprised us in terms of Iraq because we'd already noted a number of things as they happened. And that may be why the obvious escaped me or maybe just because I can be a real idiot sometimes.
But that is why the White House was furious about the leaks in terms of Iraq.
Let's again note John Barry's "'The Engame' Is A Well Researched, Highly Critical Look at U.S. Policy in Iraq" (Daily Beast):
Washington has little political and no military influence over these developments [in Iraq]. As Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor charge in their ambitious new history of the Iraq war, The Endgame, Obama's administration sacrificed political influence by failing in 2010 to insist that the results of Iraq’s first proper election be honored: "When the Obama administration acquiesced in the questionable judicial opinion that prevented Ayad Allawi's bloc, after it had won the most seats in 2010, from the first attempt at forming a new government, it undermined the prospects, however slim, for a compromise that might have led to a genuinely inclusive and cross-sectarian government."
The White House decision to back Nouri is why he could bring the country to a halt for over eight months after the elections and refuse to step down as prime minister. It was Barack that ordered the US-brokered contract (The Erbil Agreement). As the Constitution outlined things, Nouri couldn't be prime minister. So the White House had to do something extra-Constitutional to go around it. The Erbil Agreement is a contract among leaders of the various political blocs. Nouri signed it as leader of State of Law and agreeing to various terms, conditions and concessions if he could have a second term. The other leaders came up with their wish-list in exchange for giving Nouri a second term.
The US government knew the score. That's what Brad's leaks make clear. So they likely knew that Nouri would use The Erbil Agreement to get his second term and then trash it and refuse to honor it. But while they likely knew that, they absolutely knew he was a tyrant.
And yet they backed him.
Let's go back to Thomas Gaist (WSWS):
While Manning’s defense team made arguments Monday presenting his decision to leak classified documents as motivated by concern for the well-being of the United States, its military, and the Iraqi people, Lind’s ruling prevents the defense from basing their case on the defendant’s principled opposition to US policies.
On Monday, the defense called Lauren McNamara, a woman who corresponded with Manning during the period when he made the leaks. She testified that he was “concerned with saving the lives of families in foreign countries” and that he “considered human life to be valuable above all.” McNamara quoted from her correspondence with Manning, reading his statement that was “concerned about making sure that everyone, soldiers, marines, contractors, even the local nationals, get home to their families.”
US Army sergeant David Sadtler, who oversaw Manning’s intelligence work, testified that Manning was angered by the jailing of 15 Iraqi civilians, with US approval, for distributing written material criticizing the government. “He was upset at the situation,” Sadtler said. Previously, Manning stated before the court that the Iraqis involved had no ties to the armed resistance against the US occupation, and that their materials contained a “scholarly critique” of the current regime.
Manning’s pre-trial statement shows that he was motivated by a growing consciousness of the criminal character of US foreign policy. In the statement, delivered to the military judge in February, the soldier asserted that his actions were intended to initiate a process of “worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms.”
Referring to politically motivated roundups carried out with full US support by the Iraqi regime, Manning said, “I knew that if I continued to assist the Baghdad Federal Police in identifying the political opponents of Prime Minister al-Maliki, those people would be arrested and in the custody of the Baghdad Federal Police and very likely tortured and not seen again for a very long time, if ever.”
Brad knew that and so did the US government, so did the White House. So what you have with the 2010 elections is no longer just a crime against democracy, it's a partnership in torture and abuse. The White House was not surprised by how awful Nouri is, they knew more than anyone, more than Ned Parker, just what he was doing and that's in the documents that Brad released.
They overrode the will of the people to give a tyrant who tortures a second term and they did that not out of political naivete, they did it with their eyes wide open and fully aware of what a second term would mean for the Iraqi people.
Brad's Iraq revelations -- poorly covered in real time -- strip away the illusions and reveal a White House aware of how vindictive and cruel Nouri was, how torture was his immediate answer for everything, and despite this (or because of this) the White House backed Nouri al-Maliki for a second term when even the Iraqi people had rejected him.
This is the fraud who won the Nobel Peace Prize being exposed as a liar and Tricky Dick Nixon willing to destroy an entire people. No wonder Barack declared Brad guilty
Here's the Bradley Manning Support Network's transcript of Barack declaring Brad guilty:
Logan Price: [Shaking hand] Mr. President, why didn’t you talk about Bradley Manning?
Obama: Look, there are better ways and more appropriate ways to bring this up than interrupting and causing a scene…
LP: I understand. That’s why I am asking you now. I wasn’t singing or chanting and I want to know. I am really concerned because I think he is the most important whistle-blower of my generation. Why is he being prosecuted?
Obama: Well, what he did was irresponsible and risked the lives of service-members abroad… he did a lot of damage… [begin video] so people can have philosophical views on…
LP: But I haven’t seen any evidence of that, and how can you say that the leaks did more harm than good? What about their effect on the democratic revolutions in the Arab world? …and isn’t this going to help the war on terror?
Obama: No, no, no, but look, I can’t conduct diplomacy on an open source… That’s not how the world works. And if you’re in the military… And I have to abide by certain rules of classified information. If I were to release material I weren’t allowed to, I’d be breaking the law. We’re a nation of laws! We don’t let individuals make their own decisions about how the laws operate…No he’s being fine. He is being courteous and asking questions. [ This was because the Secret Service was tugging on my shirt sleeve by this point]
LP: But didn’t he have a responsibility to expose.. [war crimes]
Obama: He broke the law!
LP: Well, you can make the law harder to break, but what he did was tell us the truth.
Obama: What he did was he dumped…
LP: But Nixon tried to prosecute Daniel Ellsberg for the same thing and he is a … [hero]
Obama: No it isn’t the same thing…What Ellsberg released wasn’t classified in the same way.
As the transcript (or video) makes clear, Barack was becoming a little unhinged on the topic. Why? Because the leaks do more than anything else to reveal how little Barack cares about human rights, how little value he placed on the safety of the Iraqi people, how eager to get in bed with despots and tyrants he was. This isn't 'change,' or a Nobel Peace Prize. This is actually criminal behavior. Interfering with a country's election and electoral process to ensure that the tyrant the people just deposed will not be leaving office.
October 22nd 2010, WikiLeaks published the Iraq War Logs. They'd had them for months and it's a shame they weren't able to publish them before October 22nd. The Erbil Agreement was already being negotiated and, November 10, 2010, would be finalized. From the November 11, 2010 snapshot:
Today the KRG website announces:
Baghdad, Iraq (KRP.org) - Iraq's political leaders yesterday agreed to hold the parliamentary session as scheduled on Thursday and to name an individual for the post of Speaker of the the parliament (Council of Representatives). The Speaker post will go to the Al-Iraqiya bloc, which is headed by former prime minister Ayad Allawi.
During the meeting, which was attended by the leaders of all the winning blocs at President Masoud Barzani's Baghdad headquarters, agreement was reached on two other points: to create a council for strategic policy and to address issues regarding national reconciliation.
President Barzani, who sponsored the three days' round of meetings, stated that today's agreement was a big achievement for Iraqis. He expressed optimism that the next government will be formed soon and that it will be inclusive and representative of all of Iraq's communities.
What Brad revealed was the Barack Obama administration got into bed with a man they knew was a tyrant. Even though the Iraqi people wanted him out of office, the White House fought to keep him. And since they knew exactly how vindictive, paranoid and violent he was, that makes the US government culpable in the violence that's followed in Nouri's second term. Brad's revelations destroyed their attempt to have plausible deniability on this issue.
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"An average of 22.6 violent deaths a day so far in ..."
"Can someone drive NPR's Carrie Johnson to the free..."
"The Heat"
"CBS makes a stupid mistake"
"The Wolverine"
"what the hell?"
"Victoria Nuland indirectly confirms CIA arming 'rebels' out of Benghazi"
"Janis Ian"
"Olivia Flores Alvarez has Tyler Perry's number"
"The Big Wedding"
"Barack Renews The Patriot Act"
"Barack's little leak"
"Crazy Barry swears no one can beat his prices!"
"THIS JUST IN! PRICE TAGS ON EVERYTHING!"
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Crazy Barry swears no one can beat his prices!
BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O HAS TO BE THE TACKIEST PRESIDENT OF ALL TIME AS HE HANGS PRICE TAGS FROM EVERYTHING. THE LATEST?
HE PUT A PRICE TAG ON U.S. AMBASSADOR TO LONDON:
What’s the going rate for the US ambassadorship to London? Apparently around $2.3 million, judging by President Obama’s latest appointment to the Court of St. James’s, the most prestigious diplomatic posting in the world for a US official. This is the amount personally raised by Matthew Barzun, the chief fundraiser (finance chairman) for Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign, which raked in $730 million in total. Mr Barzun, an internet businessman, was handpicked by the White House to be Obama’s representative in London, despite the fact he has no connection to modern-day Britain and his main qualification for the job appears to be that he has been an effective “bundler” for Barack Obama's two successful presidential election campaigns. His only diplomatic experience has been his recent stint as ambassador to Sweden, hardly a global powerhouse, itself a reward for his role in helping Obama win election in 2008.
REACHED FOR COMMENT, BARRY O TOLD THESE REPORTERS THAT SELLING POSTS WAS NO BIG DEAL AND "WORSE COMES TO WORSE, I'LL BE EDUCATING AMERICA ABOUT THE TEAPOT DOME SCANDAL."
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
AP reports today that the Pentagon is considering eliminating danger pay for many troops stationed around the world in order to save money. The report notes, "Under the plans being discussed, troops would still receive the extra money if they serve in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen and in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula. The U.S. does not have any military members now serving in Iran."
Moving over to Iraq War veteran Bradley Manning whose defense rested today.
Monday April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks released military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7, 2010, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported in August 2010 that Manning had been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring classified information to his personal computer between November and May and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of classified information." In March, 2011, David S. Cloud (Los Angeles Times) reported that the military has added 22 additional counts to the charges including one that could be seen as "aiding the enemy" which could result in the death penalty if convicted. The Article 32 hearing took place in December. At the start of this year, there was an Article 32 hearing and, February 3rd, it was announced that the government would be moving forward with a court-martial. Bradley has yet to enter a plea. The court-martial was supposed to begin before the November 2012 election but it was postponed until after the election so that Barack wouldn't have to run on a record of his actual actions. Independent.ie adds, "A court martial is set to be held in June at Ford Meade in Maryland, with supporters treating him as a hero, but opponents describing him as a traitor." February 28th, Bradley admitted he leaked to WikiLeaks. And why.
Bradley Manning: In attempting to conduct counter-terrorism or CT and counter-insurgency COIN operations we became obsessed with capturing and killing human targets on lists and not being suspicious of and avoiding cooperation with our Host Nation partners, and ignoring the second and third order effects of accomplishing short-term goals and missions. I believe that if the general public, especially the American public, had access to the information contained within the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A tables this could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general as [missed word] as it related to Iraq and Afghanistan.
I also believed the detailed analysis of the data over a long period of time by different sectors of society might cause society to reevaluate the need or even the desire to even to engage in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations that ignore the complex dynamics of the people living in the effected environment everyday.
Had the US government shown the same concern, Bradley wouldn't have had to step up. Instead, they gladly supported Nouri al-Maliki in torture and that's what Brad's exposures really prove. This took place under Barack Obama's administration. When the dots are connected, it's obvious what the White House has so feared for so long.
Thomas Gaist (WSWS) reports on Monday's proceedings:
While Manning’s defense team made arguments Monday presenting his decision to leak classified documents as motivated by concern for the well-being of the United States, its military, and the Iraqi people, Lind’s ruling prevents the defense from basing their case on the defendant’s principled opposition to US policies.
On Monday, the defense called Lauren McNamara, a woman who corresponded with Manning during the period when he made the leaks. She testified that he was “concerned with saving the lives of families in foreign countries” and that he “considered human life to be valuable above all.” McNamara quoted from her correspondence with Manning, reading his statement that was “concerned about making sure that everyone, soldiers, marines, contractors, even the local nationals, get home to their families.”
US Army sergeant David Sadtler, who oversaw Manning’s intelligence work, testified that Manning was angered by the jailing of 15 Iraqi civilians, with US approval, for distributing written material criticizing the government. “He was upset at the situation,” Sadtler said. Previously, Manning stated before the court that the Iraqis involved had no ties to the armed resistance against the US occupation, and that their materials contained a “scholarly critique” of the current regime.
Manning’s pre-trial statement shows that he was motivated by a growing consciousness of the criminal character of US foreign policy. In the statement, delivered to the military judge in February, the soldier asserted that his actions were intended to initiate a process of “worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms.”
Referring to politically motivated roundups carried out with full US support by the Iraqi regime, Manning said, “I knew that if I continued to assist the Baghdad Federal Police in identifying the political opponents of Prime Minister al-Maliki, those people would be arrested and in the custody of the Baghdad Federal Police and very likely tortured and not seen again for a very long time, if ever.”
As for today, Xeni Jardin (BoingBoing) reports:
Manning has not, did not, and today told the court he will not testify in his court martial.
The defense rested its case today after having called a total of ten witnesses in the trial. The last was Yochai Benkler, a Harvard professor who is the author a widely-cited paper on the role WikiLeaks plays in what he terms "the networked fourth estate." In his testimony for the defense today, he described Wikileaks as having played a legitimate role in a new world of journalism; he argued that the government's characterization of the group as an Anti-American espionage front was inaccurate."
Adam Klasfeld (Courthouse News) explains, "The last witness to testify for the defense, Benkler is considered an academic authority in the evolution of media in the age of the Internet, and the most widely cited scholar on WikiLeaks." Ian Simpson (Reuters) adds of Benkler's testimony:
WikiLeaks is "a clear distinct component of what in the history of journalism we see as high points, where journalists are able to come in and say, 'Here's a system operating in a way that is obscure to the public and now we're able to shine the light,'" said Benkler, the co-director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society.
Brad Knickerbocker (Christian Science Monitor) observes, "The essence of Pfc. Bradley Manning’s defense in his military court martial is that, yes, he released a trove of classified data to the controversial whistle-blower organization WikiLeaks, but that information did not seriously harm US national security – and it certainly did not aid the enemy in the war on terrorism." RT notes, "The soldier’s court-martial is now recessed until next week, at which point government prosecutors plan to offer a rebuttal. Col. Denise Lind, the presiding military judge in the case, also is expected to weigh in next week on the defense’s recent request that the government acquit Pfc. Manning on four of the more than 20 counts he has been charged with, including aiding the enemy."
Moving over to Iraq, today was also when UNAMI issued the following:
SRSG Martin Kobler's message to the Iraqi people for the holy month of Ramadan
Baghdad, 10 July 2013 - As Muslims around the world are observing the holy month of Ramadan, I would like to wish a blessed and peaceful month to all Iraqis on behalf of the entire UN family in Iraq.
Ramadan is a time of devotion and harmony, a time of charity and forgiveness.
One of the big stories in Iraq since last week has been the Under-20 World Cup. Marcus Ghristenson (Guardian) reports:
On the Saturday night, Ali Yaseen was part of the Iraq squad that stunned Chile to reach the last 16 of the Under-20 World Cup in Turkey. On Sunday morning his club back in Iraq, Karbala, announced that their coach, Mohammed Abbas al-Jabouri, had died from the injuries suffered in an attack by anti-terrorism police during a match the previous weekend.
Yaseen, 19, had taken his place on the bench for the game in the knowledge that his coach was in a coma and that seven of his team-mates had been injured in the attack, several of them critically. He knew, too, that if he had not been selected for the Under-20 World Cup, he would most probably have been playing in the match against Al-Quwa Al-Jawiya and could, quite possibly, have ended up in hospital with life-threatening injuries.
AP explains the results of today's match with this headline "Uruguay spoils Iraq's fairy tale run after penalties, joining France in U-20 World Cup final." Kevin McCauley (SB Nation) reports:
Ali Adnan, an experienced senior international for Iraq, netted the opening goal with an absolutely stunning free kick, scoring his second goal of the tournament. It appeared that he would attempt to play an in-swinging cross on a free kick from the right flank, 30 yards from goal, but instead he opted to rip a bending shot towards the top corner at the near post. Uruguay keeper Guillermo De Amores actually saw and reacted to the shot well, but it was so well placed and it with so much power that he had no chance to make a save.
Uruguay had a number of good chances throughout the match, but struggled to make the most of them. Iraq goalkeeper Mohammed Hameed was erratic, but ultimately very effective and made a number of big saves and clearances. However, he wasn't able to keep a clean sheet. In the 87th minute, Felipe Avenatti won a header in a crowd and nodded down to Gonzalo Bueno, who finished from 12 yards to level the match and force extra time.
All Iraq News notes that Ali Adnan and Mohamed Hamid were injured when they crashed into one another and that the game "was suspended to transport the two Iraqi players for treatment, then they returned to the field."
Eric Willemsen (AP) explains, "Streets and cafes in Baghdad and other cities were the scene of jubilant celebrations after the wins over Paraguay and South Korea, but the streets remained calm on Wednesday. Iraq also drew a lot of Turkish fans, who switched allegiance after the host team lost in the first knockout round." This was the first time in 12 years that Iraq had qualified for the semi-finals so despite today's outcome, this was a historic victory for them. In addition to having to compete in the match, they also had to deal today with rumors that sought to disqualify the team. Eric Williemsen (AP) reports that FIFA cleared them today of charges that any member of their team was 21 or older (which would make them too old to compete).
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Iraq's big day in Turkey"
"The targeting of Adam Kokesh"
"Sandy Shaw"
"Know It All Margaret Kimberley"
"Stand up to the NSA spying"
"the corruption remains the same"
"Benghazi questions remain"
"Egypt"
"Show Tim Wise where the trash pick up is"
"Flashdance"
"The cheap Chicago hustler"
"Breeding whistle-blowers"
"Broccoli?"
"THIS JUST IN! HE LOVES NEW COKE!"
CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O HAS TO BE THE TACKIEST PRESIDENT OF ALL TIME AS HE HANGS PRICE TAGS FROM EVERYTHING. THE LATEST?
HE PUT A PRICE TAG ON U.S. AMBASSADOR TO LONDON:
What’s the going rate for the US ambassadorship to London? Apparently around $2.3 million, judging by President Obama’s latest appointment to the Court of St. James’s, the most prestigious diplomatic posting in the world for a US official. This is the amount personally raised by Matthew Barzun, the chief fundraiser (finance chairman) for Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign, which raked in $730 million in total. Mr Barzun, an internet businessman, was handpicked by the White House to be Obama’s representative in London, despite the fact he has no connection to modern-day Britain and his main qualification for the job appears to be that he has been an effective “bundler” for Barack Obama's two successful presidential election campaigns. His only diplomatic experience has been his recent stint as ambassador to Sweden, hardly a global powerhouse, itself a reward for his role in helping Obama win election in 2008.
REACHED FOR COMMENT, BARRY O TOLD THESE REPORTERS THAT SELLING POSTS WAS NO BIG DEAL AND "WORSE COMES TO WORSE, I'LL BE EDUCATING AMERICA ABOUT THE TEAPOT DOME SCANDAL."
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
AP reports today that the Pentagon is considering eliminating danger pay for many troops stationed around the world in order to save money. The report notes, "Under the plans being discussed, troops would still receive the extra money if they serve in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen and in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula. The U.S. does not have any military members now serving in Iran."
Moving over to Iraq War veteran Bradley Manning whose defense rested today.
Monday April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks released military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7, 2010, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported in August 2010 that Manning had been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring classified information to his personal computer between November and May and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of classified information." In March, 2011, David S. Cloud (Los Angeles Times) reported that the military has added 22 additional counts to the charges including one that could be seen as "aiding the enemy" which could result in the death penalty if convicted. The Article 32 hearing took place in December. At the start of this year, there was an Article 32 hearing and, February 3rd, it was announced that the government would be moving forward with a court-martial. Bradley has yet to enter a plea. The court-martial was supposed to begin before the November 2012 election but it was postponed until after the election so that Barack wouldn't have to run on a record of his actual actions. Independent.ie adds, "A court martial is set to be held in June at Ford Meade in Maryland, with supporters treating him as a hero, but opponents describing him as a traitor." February 28th, Bradley admitted he leaked to WikiLeaks. And why.
Bradley Manning: In attempting to conduct counter-terrorism or CT and counter-insurgency COIN operations we became obsessed with capturing and killing human targets on lists and not being suspicious of and avoiding cooperation with our Host Nation partners, and ignoring the second and third order effects of accomplishing short-term goals and missions. I believe that if the general public, especially the American public, had access to the information contained within the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A tables this could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general as [missed word] as it related to Iraq and Afghanistan.
I also believed the detailed analysis of the data over a long period of time by different sectors of society might cause society to reevaluate the need or even the desire to even to engage in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations that ignore the complex dynamics of the people living in the effected environment everyday.
Had the US government shown the same concern, Bradley wouldn't have had to step up. Instead, they gladly supported Nouri al-Maliki in torture and that's what Brad's exposures really prove. This took place under Barack Obama's administration. When the dots are connected, it's obvious what the White House has so feared for so long.
Thomas Gaist (WSWS) reports on Monday's proceedings:
While Manning’s defense team made arguments Monday presenting his decision to leak classified documents as motivated by concern for the well-being of the United States, its military, and the Iraqi people, Lind’s ruling prevents the defense from basing their case on the defendant’s principled opposition to US policies.
On Monday, the defense called Lauren McNamara, a woman who corresponded with Manning during the period when he made the leaks. She testified that he was “concerned with saving the lives of families in foreign countries” and that he “considered human life to be valuable above all.” McNamara quoted from her correspondence with Manning, reading his statement that was “concerned about making sure that everyone, soldiers, marines, contractors, even the local nationals, get home to their families.”
US Army sergeant David Sadtler, who oversaw Manning’s intelligence work, testified that Manning was angered by the jailing of 15 Iraqi civilians, with US approval, for distributing written material criticizing the government. “He was upset at the situation,” Sadtler said. Previously, Manning stated before the court that the Iraqis involved had no ties to the armed resistance against the US occupation, and that their materials contained a “scholarly critique” of the current regime.
Manning’s pre-trial statement shows that he was motivated by a growing consciousness of the criminal character of US foreign policy. In the statement, delivered to the military judge in February, the soldier asserted that his actions were intended to initiate a process of “worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms.”
Referring to politically motivated roundups carried out with full US support by the Iraqi regime, Manning said, “I knew that if I continued to assist the Baghdad Federal Police in identifying the political opponents of Prime Minister al-Maliki, those people would be arrested and in the custody of the Baghdad Federal Police and very likely tortured and not seen again for a very long time, if ever.”
As for today, Xeni Jardin (BoingBoing) reports:
Manning has not, did not, and today told the court he will not testify in his court martial.
The defense rested its case today after having called a total of ten witnesses in the trial. The last was Yochai Benkler, a Harvard professor who is the author a widely-cited paper on the role WikiLeaks plays in what he terms "the networked fourth estate." In his testimony for the defense today, he described Wikileaks as having played a legitimate role in a new world of journalism; he argued that the government's characterization of the group as an Anti-American espionage front was inaccurate."
Adam Klasfeld (Courthouse News) explains, "The last witness to testify for the defense, Benkler is considered an academic authority in the evolution of media in the age of the Internet, and the most widely cited scholar on WikiLeaks." Ian Simpson (Reuters) adds of Benkler's testimony:
WikiLeaks is "a clear distinct component of what in the history of journalism we see as high points, where journalists are able to come in and say, 'Here's a system operating in a way that is obscure to the public and now we're able to shine the light,'" said Benkler, the co-director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society.
Brad Knickerbocker (Christian Science Monitor) observes, "The essence of Pfc. Bradley Manning’s defense in his military court martial is that, yes, he released a trove of classified data to the controversial whistle-blower organization WikiLeaks, but that information did not seriously harm US national security – and it certainly did not aid the enemy in the war on terrorism." RT notes, "The soldier’s court-martial is now recessed until next week, at which point government prosecutors plan to offer a rebuttal. Col. Denise Lind, the presiding military judge in the case, also is expected to weigh in next week on the defense’s recent request that the government acquit Pfc. Manning on four of the more than 20 counts he has been charged with, including aiding the enemy."
Moving over to Iraq, today was also when UNAMI issued the following:
SRSG Martin Kobler's message to the Iraqi people for the holy month of Ramadan
Ramadan is a time of devotion and harmony, a time of charity and forgiveness.
The country has been struck by an increasing number of attacks and great violence during the past weeks and months. May the spirit of Ramadan bring peace and the hope for a better future to all Iraqi communities.
Ramadan Mubarak!
One of the big stories in Iraq since last week has been the Under-20 World Cup. Marcus Ghristenson (Guardian) reports:
On the Saturday night, Ali Yaseen was part of the Iraq squad that stunned Chile to reach the last 16 of the Under-20 World Cup in Turkey. On Sunday morning his club back in Iraq, Karbala, announced that their coach, Mohammed Abbas al-Jabouri, had died from the injuries suffered in an attack by anti-terrorism police during a match the previous weekend.
Yaseen, 19, had taken his place on the bench for the game in the knowledge that his coach was in a coma and that seven of his team-mates had been injured in the attack, several of them critically. He knew, too, that if he had not been selected for the Under-20 World Cup, he would most probably have been playing in the match against Al-Quwa Al-Jawiya and could, quite possibly, have ended up in hospital with life-threatening injuries.
AP explains the results of today's match with this headline "Uruguay spoils Iraq's fairy tale run after penalties, joining France in U-20 World Cup final." Kevin McCauley (SB Nation) reports:
Ali Adnan, an experienced senior international for Iraq, netted the opening goal with an absolutely stunning free kick, scoring his second goal of the tournament. It appeared that he would attempt to play an in-swinging cross on a free kick from the right flank, 30 yards from goal, but instead he opted to rip a bending shot towards the top corner at the near post. Uruguay keeper Guillermo De Amores actually saw and reacted to the shot well, but it was so well placed and it with so much power that he had no chance to make a save.
Uruguay had a number of good chances throughout the match, but struggled to make the most of them. Iraq goalkeeper Mohammed Hameed was erratic, but ultimately very effective and made a number of big saves and clearances. However, he wasn't able to keep a clean sheet. In the 87th minute, Felipe Avenatti won a header in a crowd and nodded down to Gonzalo Bueno, who finished from 12 yards to level the match and force extra time.
All Iraq News notes that Ali Adnan and Mohamed Hamid were injured when they crashed into one another and that the game "was suspended to transport the two Iraqi players for treatment, then they returned to the field."
Eric Willemsen (AP) explains, "Streets and cafes in Baghdad and other cities were the scene of jubilant celebrations after the wins over Paraguay and South Korea, but the streets remained calm on Wednesday. Iraq also drew a lot of Turkish fans, who switched allegiance after the host team lost in the first knockout round." This was the first time in 12 years that Iraq had qualified for the semi-finals so despite today's outcome, this was a historic victory for them. In addition to having to compete in the match, they also had to deal today with rumors that sought to disqualify the team. Eric Williemsen (AP) reports that FIFA cleared them today of charges that any member of their team was 21 or older (which would make them too old to compete).
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Iraq's big day in Turkey"
"The targeting of Adam Kokesh"
"Sandy Shaw"
"Know It All Margaret Kimberley"
"Stand up to the NSA spying"
"the corruption remains the same"
"Benghazi questions remain"
"Egypt"
"Show Tim Wise where the trash pick up is"
"Flashdance"
"The cheap Chicago hustler"
"Breeding whistle-blowers"
"Broccoli?"
"THIS JUST IN! HE LOVES NEW COKE!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)