الرياض، المملكة العربية السعودية – أشارت فرنسا القائمة على عبادة الاستنساخ أتباع رايل، وهذا الصباح أن نجاحهم في إنتاج في مجمع جزر البهاما استنساخ من نبي الإسلام النهائي، محمد بن عبد الله، وبعد أربع محاولات سابقة فاشلة.
يتحدث من مكان لم يكشف عنه في جزر البهاما، المتحدث باسم الرائيليين بريجيت الوطنية الفرنسية وبويسلييه، الذي أشرف على إنشاء استنساخ أول إنسان، وذكر ان العملية كانت ناجحة. “لقد أمضينا عدة أشهر في البحث عن مرشح المناسب تماما من خلال كريغزلست، وأخيرا وجدت الأم المثالية البديلة من خلال Jdate.com. في حين أن الأجنة المتقدمة القليلة الأولى انتهى يجري – كيف تقول – “لم تنفجر، ‘استغرق الخامس بشكل جيد، ومحمد جديد، ونحن ندعو له، وقد حصلت للتو من خلال الثلث الأول من الحمل وتبحث صحية” و. الرائيليين عبادة يقول أن الحيوانات المستنسخة السابقة كانت إما “مشوهة” أو “غير صحية”. أمراض النساء الرائيليين إحباط الأربعة الأولى الأجنة محمد بعد تسعة أسابيع من الحمل.
السيدة بويسلييه، الكيميائي عن طريق التدريب، بالتفصيل كيف أن أتباع رايل تعاونت مع المجتمع الاستخبارات الإسرائيلية للحصول على الحمض النووي من التبجيل وأكثرها شهرة على قيد الحياة البشرية من أي وقت مضى. في العام الماضي وعلم أن الحمض النووي لديه نصف العمر فقط العملية لبضعة آلاف من السنين. ذهب أتباع رايل والموساد أقفال العديد من الشعر النبوية هي تطوف في العالم، ولكن من أجل ضمان جديد محمد كان حقيقيا، والحق في المصدر.
في أكتوبر 2012 من قبر محمد والمنزل السابق كانت مخترقة من قبل مصور. أخبار الشيعة Shafaqna الموقع يبرهن هذه الحقيقة جدا. وقد داهمت قبر محمد، والمادة الوراثية المستخرجة من الجسم بالنسبة لنا في الاستنساخ.
وقال النبي، نيي كلود فوريلهون، وقال انه يأمل أن المشروع سوف تثير المزيد من الاهتمام في استنساخ البشر ورفع القيود المفروضة على الممارسة، في مواجهة العديد من بلدان العالم وأتباع رايل بعد أن تجرم الاستنساخ البشري بعد فترة وجيزة من إنشاء الثورية خروف مستنسخ ، دوللي، في 1990s. ولا ينبغي له أن يواجه أي مضاعفات في الثلث الثاني أو الثالث، ومن المقرر الجديد محمد أن يولد يونيو من عام 2013.
David Coombs, Army Reservist, America Hater Photo: Tyler Bass, Washington Correspondent, The Internet Chronicle
WASHINGTON — December 3rd Bradley Manning Attorney and Army Reservist spoke to a congregation near Mt. Pleasant, District of Columbia. He spoke for almost 90 minutes, part of which included a question period in which he answered questions from the press feed to him by members of the Bradley Manning Support Network, a group that has collected legal fees for the private suspected of leaking thousands of pages of data documenting war crimes, innocuous activity, the overclassification of information. Some call the Army Private a traitor; others, including Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg, have called him a whistleblower.
“He told me that his dream would be to go to college to get a degree. And as a young man at that time he was 23. That makes sense. We all know that college degrees are pretty much the ticket to a productive future.” The Unitarian Church is notable for being one of the most educated denominations in the country, and certainly this line resonated well with attendees.
While Mr. Coombs told the crowd that he did not want to try Private Manning’s case with the public, whether or not he believes that the immense public pressure surrounding the case — especially since the diminutive former, now demoted, specialist no longer leaves in doubt his being the source of the WikiLeaks data that sparked global revolutions — was and will be key to shining attention on his mistreatment at the hands of the Quantico Marine Base in Virginia, where he was held and Judge Lind has ruled that he was mistreated. As though Mark Antony describing Caesar as an “honorable man,” Mr. Coombs said, “As I said to begin with, this public appearance is the exception for me. I believe that trying the case is not the way to representation of a client,” despite the public’s opinion certainly having an a heavy influence on the inevitable sentencing of the private. Mr. Coombs continued, “And Brad — at least from what he testified in the open hearing — didn’t want his case to be tried in the press, either. And also because that was his wishes early on but also because my perspective is you shouldn’t try your case in the press — I respected his wishes and didn’t grant issues. And even after this day I won’t be granting interviews. And the reason why, again, is because your focus has to be on your client and not on, you know, basically putting out facts to spin something your way in the press when that doesn’t achieve anything in the courtroom. When you’re in the courtroom, that’s what matters. What happens there matters. In the press, as I said here today, what really matters is you, the public, being involved and being informed and that the press can do wonderful things. That’s why I’m happy to see them here today. And that’s what really resulted in Brad being moved, in my opinion, from Quantico, to Fort Leavenworth.”
Next was The Internet Chronicle’s question (answered at 01:20:00 in the file below this article), which was based on concerns we had from the trial, in which Private Manning had complained about his jailers listening in on his phone call: “Are you and your client able to communicate freely on a privileged basis.”
Replied Mr. Coombs to The Internet Chronicle’s question, “Yes, Brad and I speak at least once a week, if not more, and we — obviously we see each other quite often as well. Our communications are always privileged. They’re never subject to any sort of recording or being monitored by anyone. And so because of that I act basically as kind of the conduit for Brad, giving him information and helping him stay in touch and informed. So those communications are not subject to monitoring.”
While attending the pre-trial in May, this reporter engaged in a conversation with a military police officer — last name “Parker” — who volunteered his view that protesters outside of Fort Meade, where the private’s trial was being held, in fact disliked the military. Asked if Lt. Dan Choi, a high-profile anti-“don’t ask, don’t tell” activist, also disliked the military, the MP still expressed skepticism. This is exactly the dynamic that drives Mr. Coombs to speak in public, despite his
Said Mr. Coombs, “I asked Brad: ‘Well, with that degree what do you plan on doing?’ And he said, ‘I want to go into pubic service.’ And I asked him what he meant by that. And he said, ‘I want to join some sort of campaign group, go into public service and perhaps one day run for public office.’”
That statement by the attorney was met by gentle murmurings.
Mr. Coombs continued with: “And I asked Brad, why would he want to do that. And he said, ‘I want to make a difference. I want to make a difference in this world.’”
“I can tell you that standing here today I hope that someday soon Brad can go to college. I hope someday soon he can in fact go into public service. But I am confident, as I stand here today, that Brad doesn’t have to worry about making a difference in this world. He has made a difference.” With that line, Mr. Coombs was greeted with steady applause by all in attendance except the press.
Of the two questions that The Internet Chronicle submitted on note cards to Nathan Fuller, this was perhaps the best answer to the other question staff had for Mr. Coombs, which we would later pose to leadership of the Center for Constitutional Rights: “Was there a net positive value in Private Manning have orchestrated the large leak of classified information in military history?”
Speaking to The Internet Chronicle, Michael Ratner, from the Center for Constitutional Rights, said, “Assuming [Private] Manning leaked it, there’s no doubt that he has exposed material that has been very important for both ending wars, end the hypocrisy of our government, and ending the corruption. I mean, it consider it to be no issue about it.” Mr. Ratner added, “What we have is a government of incredible secrecy that’s getting more secret. And unless you have people starting to expose material, we are facing a situation of a total surveillance state. And these guys are heroes, in my view, for what they’ve done.”
Asked if there were any negative consequences of leaking, even if they were outweighed by positives, Mr. Ratner told this reporter, “The government hasn’t come up with any that are negative in the sense of hurting anybody. What they’ve said is, yeah, they can’t do their diplomatic stuff in the same way and all that, but I don’t consider that a negative.”
Despite criticism from press, such as the highly intrepid Alexa O’Brien (@carwinb), who when we attended the trial, complained about lack of access and documentation, Defense Counsel Coombs said that the military justice system was the best place for Private Manning to be in and even said that it was more just than the civilian court system. He called it “the best courtroom you can go into.”
Speaking from the podium that evening to about 50 members of the public, “When you look at it from the outside, you could see and perhaps think that the system is built to obtain a certain outcome. I can tell you with confidence — again, having practiced both in state and federal and in military practice — that a court-martial is by far the fairest, justest system that I’ve ever practiced in. And that may sound confusing. And I actually get some looks of — I don’t — I don’t know about that.”
With that line, there was chuckling from the audience. The congregation, which I have attended, in which my own son was dedicated, I have noticed to be skeptical of military activities. Two years ago I attended a morning session in which an activist spoke of disassembling the entire nuclear weapons infrastructure in the United States to acclaim, to agreement and to accord.
“But let me tell you why,” said Mr. Coombs. “Military judges are not just picked out at random. They’re not voted in. A military judge is somebody who has done in most instances both federal — excuse me — acted as a prosecutor and as a defense counsel for a period of times, has seen both sides.
“Also that person usually has taken on the role of a chief of military justice, which would be the equivalent of a DA; or a senior defense counsel. And so from that perspective you have a lot of experience, plus once the judge becomes a judge usually that person is a lieutenant colonel or a colonel. People who go that route are not interested in becoming generals. And so you’ve kind of tapped out at the top of where you would want to be. So there is no influence issue. And you have somebody there that is truly experienced, who truly understands the law. And from my perspective I would take a judge who knows the law and is very experienced over many of the judges I’ve practiced in state and federal.
“And then from a panel standpoint, if you go with a panel, almost everybody in the military — once they have obtained a certain rank — has some sort of college degree.”
And here once again, Mr. Coombs was making an appeal to the members of the audience.
He said, “And I think that in and of itself speaks volumes about the person’s ability to at least have an open mind on certain topics.”
Since the date of this speaking engagement, the trial continues to be pushed back — court officials blaming the delay, as did Mr. Coombs, on “further defense motions.”
Nonsense at the beginning — Complete Internet Chronicle audio of the David Coombs speech on Manning, hosted via SoundCloud (Ratner begins at 35:00) while Coombs’ first public presentation begins at (51:00):
WASHINGTON — In one of those long, rambling Alex Jones films, hip-hop artist KRS One summed up some substantial misgivings to be had with Occupy D.C. rather nicely when he said that if you have a problem with your burger at McDonald’s, you don’t go complain to the guy slapping on the cheese. You go to talk to the franchise owner. In relationship to America’s economic woes, Congress is pretty much the guys with the cheese. Whether what McDonald’s is using is in fact cheese is another topic, but there you go.
Last October I took a lot of time to ask about why National Review and Amanda Carpenter at The Washington Times had invested so much of their time trying to smear the, like, five anti-Semites who they managed to find footage of at the protests, as opposed to, say, the plethora of liberal Jews who inevitably showed up to the event in Zucotti. Although someone at the McPherson Square camp — not three blocks from the White House — had constructed a Sukkot, still there were the general accusations of anti-Semitism from the Breitbart set. The whole charade was indicative of the kind of atmosphere in Washington where what these people, you would think, would call anti-Semitic was brushed aside. For more of this, look at the uphill battle faced by former Senator Chuck Hagel (R-IN) as he waited to get the defense secretary nod. Even though the Hagel announcement will not come until next Monday, last Friday Foreign Policy’s Josh Rogin had already broken the story. The White House is floating it early to congressional leaders to soften the blows from people like Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) et al.
These stereotypes of the Occupy protesters in general were pretty crude. Indeed, it takes quite a short-term memory to repeat long platitudes about the financial sector, as a part of the human megaphone. At the time I began this write-up I painted the Ron Paul-ites present as part of the Occupy status quo, but my goodness, I was wrong It had been years since I was able to romanticize the notion of protesters in Washington bringing a list of grievances. Again, the “real owners” are not in the Capitol or the White House, folks, and to be fair, even a good deal of them don’t even work on Wall Street.
One of the most clean-cut people I spoke to in McPherson was a guy named Matthew Patterson, who was working full-time but said he came down there after work from 5 p.m. till 11 p.m. He said, “I think there have been a lot of misconceptions about what this event is about here, and I think that part of that is because the biggest interests in our country do have well-financed PR and attack machines that do try to discredit genuine movements like this .”
“The conception that this is un-American for people to come out here exercising their First Amendment right — the goal that our government should be accountable to we the people — is absurd. This is the most American thing I’ve ever been a part of, and I think every single person who believes in our Constitution should be out here,” he added.
“When you feel that the system’s rigged against you and you feel that real wages have been declining or stagnating for this long, when we’ve been bailing out Wall Street and the big interests, and our money that we’ve worked for as taxpayers is now going to these guys, while they’ve — while they’ve only wrecked our economy, I think that’s where the anger comes from.”
I asked, “How do you respond to people who say, you know, that the protesters aren’t specific enough? What do you think about? I mean, is that — do you think aren’t? Or is it very broad-based, or are there a lot of things that are matter of consensus?”
Said Mr. Patterson, “We always operate by consensus. Obviously, each person here is here by free association [ . . . ] We don’t have a well-oiled PR machine where we have one spokesperson. If you take the time to listen, you’ll find the common thread. In my entire time here — I’ve been here since the first day. Every single person I’ve talked to here has echoed the sentiments that I’ve had, which is that our government, our corporations, our parties, our media should all be accountable for what they do here. I think that’s the common thread.”
I said,”I was wondering if I could pick your brain about some campaign finance reform, specifically about, like, contributions from hedge funds and, you know, our friends at Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan and the six major I-banks in general. I mean, what do you think can be done to dimish the influence of those contributions? Should they banned? Is money speech, as some have contended?” I was referring to the Citizens United decision, which has since received skepticism by right-wing figures such as Newt Gingrich and former Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, both of whom seemed to agree at the last national Republican convention that the anonymity, if not the amount, of the contributions was problematic to the system.
Mr. Paterson replied, “Well, I’ll tell you — one thing that I strongly believe in is that corporations are not people. And when you look at what the Supreme Court did in 2010, ruling that corporations are citizens; they’re people of this country; and that money equals speech in this country; therefore there can be unlimited corporate money spent to influence the outcomes of elections to buy politicians, that’s something that’s not right.
“There’s other options as far as helping publicly finance campaigns so independent parties and third-party candidates can have a voice and we have don’t this monopoly of two parties in our country. There’s a lot of options to be looked at, but we in this park have not charged any specific policy options yet. It could come over time, but I think it’s too early for that, but there’s a lot of things that could be done.”
Jesse Jackson showed up, and I asked him the same question, although severely flubbing it out of nervousness generated by some review I read of “Shakedown.”
TB: “How can we limit the influence of the financial services industry on politicians in the Senate, the House?”
Jesse Jackson: “By finding and having hearings on their campaign finance committees. There’s too much money involved in campaigns, too much money.”
TB: “Limit contributions?”
JJ: “Yeah. And those –”
TB: “Publicly funded campaigns?”
JJ: “– who invest money determine the legislation. They determine regulation. So it’s time to put a huge focus on public financing of campaigns.”
I spoke to a group of American University students, who by the very nature of their being a certain age, were probably representative of many of the motivations people have had to camp out in McPherson Square for the past few weeks. They didn’t give me their names, so I’m just going to make up names for them.
John Brown: “I think a lot of it is a lack of influence on the political process and an overabundance of corporate influence in the political process. I feel like — and this is a minute ago — that there’s — capitalism is a great system in a lot of ways, but when it goes unchecked and unregulated, you end up with people who have a vested interest in making more money. And when they already have a lot of money, they can invest that to keep making more money. And so that’s how we’ve gotten point in the political — by putting it in the political process and ensuring that they’ll keep making more money.”
I asked him what sort of regulations he would like to see.
JB: “I’d like to see higher taxes on the superwealthy. I mean, there’s been a lot of talk about people who make, you know, more than $200,000, more than $400,000 a year, which is good. But I mean, what about people who make millions of dollars a year or billions of dollars, you know? And there aren’t that many of them.” Just this month the Senate-passed “fiscal-cliff” bill indeed raised taxes on $400,000 earners.
Mr. Brown continued, “But 10 percent of America’s population controls something like 75 (percent) to 80 percent of its wealth. And that’s what makes capitalism an — and that kind of capitalism is anti-democratic because suddenly you have a system where people are voting with their dollars, but most of the people have no dollars to vote with, and a minority, a very small minority, of the people have all of the political influence.”
TB: “It seems like a lot of people — when people speak against corruption in capitalism, [the criticizers of the people who speak against corruption in capitalism] treat it like it’s an attack on meritocracy itself, like on a system where the just and the able are rewarded and are rewarded thus financially. But why do you think people are reacting that, that they treat regulation of an industry as an attack on the ability of the just and the able to achieve success and have an incentive to produce things for everyone?”
JB: “I think because it’s an easy argument to make, and I think that’s why. I mean, I’m a democratic socialist, but . . . I mean, welfare and socialism is important, and you know, that kind of having a touch of that. But I mean, capitalism’s also important. I mean, you’ve got to strike a balance. I would never call for a completely socialist state and I would never call for absolutely no — you know, like a libertarian state –
TB: “Like Somalia!”
JB: — where capitalism is totally free to whatever it wants. I don’t think either one will work. But somewhere in the middle, where you have a regulated capitalist economy and a lot of social programs, I think, is just right. You need that.
“And the people who make the most out of society, they didn’t make it on their own. They’re a product of this society. They should have to give back. I mean, that’s why I think there should be higher taxes on the superwealthy. Because they should have to give back according to what they take. And that money, they didn’t just make that themselves.
People spent that, so that came from someone else. Someone gave them that money, so they have — I mean, it is a cycle, and so they have to feed back in, I think, to the cycle. They have to promote.”
Another man said, “You know, Monsanto, they’re actually in Iraq. So after the invasion — or a great example of kind of what I think is completely repugnant about the government — where — you had, you know, L. Paul Bremer as the head of the provisional government and, you know, putting in these place decrees really. It wasn’t voted on by the Iraqi people. He has instituted over 80, you know, orders for post-war Iraqis, where it created the conditions, created the intellectual property laws, you know, the patent laws that allowed Monsanto to then come in and to, you know, make massive profits off these Iraqi farmers who unbenknownst to them were given Monsanto seeds by USAID. You know, once those seeds are in the ground, I mean, you’re paying for them for pretty much forever.
“And you know, that whole sort of system actually is one example: that entire system where, you know, it’s corporations — they’re not literally deciding policy. But when there’s not much divide all the time between these corporate interests and these political interests is pretty abominable.
“And you know, corporations., they make tons of profit, which they can then spend on campaign contributions or, you know, on political ads now. With Citizens United, a lot of restrictions are gone, these previous restrictions. And I think you have these, you know, government officials and stuff who are able to use the law to create favorable conditions for corporations.
“Or with the IMF — you know, what we see there is the IMF is kind of like a doctor that, you know, will save your life but cut off your foot, you know, in payment — where it goes into countries, Greece, for example; or a lot of South America: Argentina, Bolivia in the past. And you know, these countries are messes economically. What the IMF does is say essentially, you know, we’ll help you out here with this money, but you know, we’ll use these structural readjustment programs to impose these neoliberal trade policies that are extremely harmful for countries that don’t have a strong labor organization — they don’t have strong domestic industries — that allow — for example, this wasn’t IMF-imposed, but you know the policies were similar — I don’t believe it was IMF-imposed; I might be wrong — in Cote d’Ivoire where Cargill — you know,the agrobusiness company — has horribly exploited the workers there for, you know, the coca resources [...] But in general that whole sort of political culture where that’s acceptable, where that’s a regularly done thing, i think is something that needs to end as soon as we can, you know, bring it to an end.”
A woman seated nearby said, “Well, I think that Sandra was saying earlier about it easy argument to make that, like, attacking capitalism is like attaching, you know, hard work. I think the reason that that is such an easy argument to make is because everyone secretly hopes that they’re going to be that 1 percent someday, and like, they don’t want to regulate corporations or, like, tax the rich because they kind of hope that that will be them. And they want — you know, well, I wouldn’t want as much money as possible.”
“Or not so secretly,” suggested a man seated next to her.
Said another woman in the circle, “I know. It’s not a secret. They’re like, well, when I’m rich, I don’t want to be stifled.
Abbie Hoffman: “A big part of American culture, I think, is the idea that someday you’ll be the super — you’ll be that guy in the mansion.”
TB: “And then you can finally put your knee on someone else’s kneck? You know, like your old boss or something.”
‘Emma Goldman’: “Right, yeah. It’s like fraternities.”
AH: “It’s almost like a distortion of the American dream, or like, it’s the nasty side.”
‘John Brown’: “It’s the commercialization of it. “
‘Emma Goldman’: “People want to believe it, but it’s not really — it’s not going to happen to them.”
AH: “It could. It could. It’s possible. It’s not probable, but they’re going for that — you know, I’m going to be the 1 percent who makes it to the 1 percent.”
Said a bystander, “Yeah, but I think it’s also — it’s not a sustainable thing. And ‘sustainable’ is a word that gets thrown around a lot. It’s sort of, you know, the green movements.’
TB: “Did people really let the wealth gap in the United States spiral out of country since the ’60s and ’70s because they wanted to be so not just rich and well-off and comfortable compared to the rest of the world but even just relative to their neighbors in the United States?”
AH: “I mean, we’re a system based on competition. I think that’s certainly.”
EG: “We’re just really focused on individualism. Like, it’s a good thing but it’s also, like, to our detriment.”
AH: “Individual freedom to an extent of, like, being able to do whatever you want at whatever price to whoever else is around. And it doesn’t matter. If I can pay for it, I don’t care how it affects you. It’s my right to do it. It’s sort of a selfish thing.
TB: “It seems like we just publicly subsidize gambling, like we’re literally operating casinos as just a way of turning profit. And it’s an esoteric game for a very small group of people, and it doesn’t produce products. It’s obviously not moving money to the sectors of the economy where it’s needed most, in my opinion.”
Said again the bystander I did not bother to nickname, “Yeah, that’s what it used to be. Well, we reward — I don’t know about the most, but what’s extremely well-rewarded in this culture is moving money around, just playing around with money to maximize everyone’s profits.”
TB: “Just moving it anywhere, you think?”
Said the bystander, “I mean, if I think of it as just moving it anywhere, then that wouldn’t be the best financial strategy. But it’s certainly moving money around, and that’s not creating anything.”
EG: “Like taking risk to have great reward.”
AH: “I was reading about a man who just made a tremendous amount in the recession because he,like, bet against the economy. And like, the Occupy Wall Street proters, like, went by his home, and he just, like, sent out a press release or something along those lines just saying how it was a completely ridiculous movement.”
Said the bystander, “And the U.S. government has really kind of created a system that currently allows for, you know, virtually unlimited profit for banks because, you know, the government, like, lowered interest rates to pretty much zero percent for these banks to borrow money. And the idea was that, you know, OK, they borrow money at zero percent interest rates, and then they’ll be more willing to lend money; you know, they won’t be foreclosing.
‘That was the idea. It was supposed to benefit people. It hasn’t happened. What they do is they have been buying U.S. Treasury bonds, which you know, that you get interest on that. So you can just borrow money, buy bonds. You know, it’s just — where; like, what — why the entire systemis just designed, you know, to help these people. I think it’s awful. It’s really bad.”
I had been monitoring the McPherson Square campout of Occupy D.C. for a few weeks, and by October 15 — when I first wrote down these interactions — there were more tents out in the park than ever. The People’s Library was set up, complete with issues of Socialist Worker and Left Turn. There was a carefully named “comfort” tent with medical supplies, just like the flagship Zucotti Park manifestation of the Occupy demonstrations.
There are good reasons to be leery about the possible co-opting of these demonstrations against corporate greed, and particularly greed in the financial services industry. The end-the-Fed advocate out there with whom I spoke admitted that an outcome of adopting a gold standard for our currency would be unlikely to raise employment or lessen economic disparity in the United States.
‘Van Hayek:’ “I was here last weekend for a march, and one of the chants we had going during that was, ‘Banks got bailed out; we got sold out.’ So I would say the majority of people here at least in my experience are against the bailouts and against bailouts in general on principle [...] The main reason I’m against them is just the fact that trickle-down economics has proven not to work, you know? The idea is that in saving these banks that money will eventually return to the lower classes and the working classes and the middle classes of the economy and stimulate growth in that area. And that hasn’t happened.
“And what’s ended up happening is that the banks have turned record profits ever since the bailouts, as have other industries, and it’s not trickling down to the people that need it most. And that’s my problem with.”
TB: “Why would ending the Fed — what would that do? Would that decrease the wealth disparities, or what would that do?”
VH: “Well, my problem with the Fed is that — it has to do with the way the money supply works in the economy in that every dollar that comes into existence is already debt owed to a bank. And the Fed is really just a private bank. It’s not owned by the people of the United States. And that’s the problem I have with it. What we should have is a government that can print its own money that isn’t backed by debt that’s owed to a bank. And I’m not sure specifically how to solve that right now, but I know it’s not something that I like.”
TB: “I noticed a lot of people are really upset that the banks have all this money and these major corporations have all this money. And then people — you know, they’re creating jobs with it, at least not with the rate that, you know, the population’s expanding and stuff. Do you think that’s there’s any, like, conflict between the requirements that Congress and many people want to put on the banks to have larger and larger capital reserves, so when they mess up they can control their own consequences instead of having to get bailed; and the other demand, that is in fact they need to take their money and then invest it and take risk and then create all these jobs? Do you feel that there’s, like, a conflict there between those types of demands?”
Milton Friedman: “I’m not a big proponent of trickle-down economics as far as that goes. So I don’t really see that plan working. As far as investment goes — at least as far as I’ve seen — when investment is made, it’s usually in a foreign country, where land is very cheap and they can buy –
TB: “Labor, too.”
MF: ” — labor, exactly. They can buy a really nice house with a good bit of land. And you know, I mean, it’s –”
TB: “That’s not going to go down in value. Land at least never does.”
MF: “No, exactly. Well, I mean, like, the thing is I recently actually went to India. And I mean, when I was there, it was absolutely amazing to see the massive skyscrapers of telemarketers — just I mean, bigger than anything we have here, just of telemarketer buildings in India. And you know, the thing is we all kind of know that that money didn’t come from them; that was our money that was shuffled into their economy over the past decade.”
“And I personally have no problem with, you know, exchanging wealth and stuff. But when we’re talking about the stuff we’re in . . . you know, and we’re sending how much money to other countries in order to build out their economies. I mean, that’s my main problem with it as far as the investment side of it goes.”
“I mean, regulations — yes, I support regulation so that they should be able to — you know, they should definitely be regulated in how much they can lend. I don’t believe in fractional lending at all, but however, another point is I definitely hate the bailout idea, the very idea that that — I mean, that that is even an option for something that’s not like the — you know, the major food producer in the country or, you know, something like that, where everybody would starve if it didn’t happen. I mean, I think it’s absolutely insane.”
The International Business Times aired a set of graphs that quite thoroughly dispense with the insipid claim — even by voices as apparently sympathetic as Al Gore’s own — that the protesters are not being specific enough. As the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, making promises that the American Jobs Act would get unemployment below 9.1 percent, which would effectively happen two months later without the bill’s passage, anyone capable of so much as squinting could see that the real statistics about joblessness are a pure manipulation, as one’s finally giving up and resigning yourself to the dole gradually put one out of that “regular” unemployed category. Altogether hearing bystanders, pundits, reporters and especially electoral losers like Al Gore complain about how the protests weren’t specific just felt like impatience.
I even heard a lot of sneering from a crowd — one I would have perhaps years ago associated with MoveOn.org, named for a now-irrelevant political sex scandal — that the consensus, not plurality system of Occupy Atlanta blocked civil rights-era legend and now Congressman John Lewis’ addressing them. Rep. Lewis did yeoman’s work fighting the evils of segregation in the vicious 1960s South, but if the iron was not yet hot, there was no point in striking it yet. The most closely associated Occupy politician, Elizabeth Warren, eventually rode to victory in Massachusetts, having never spoken at a rally but having faced Karl Rove’s bizarre Crossroads ad.
The protest proved successful in pushing forward the surtax on incomes over a million dollars, cutting the odds of monthly account fees, and causing legions of Americans to move their money into credit unions. Even in December 2009, when the Bush-era tax cuts on the top 1 and 2 percent were extended, polls showed a slim majority of self-identified Republicans supported their repeal. By late 2010, four-fifths of the general population support the millionaire surtax, as do surely even more of the people who took the enormous hassle of assembling overnight in public spaces. That brand of protest is one of the best reasons why the Constitution pays lip service to freedom of assembly. In McPherson Square, at least, what was so strikingly different than the tea partyers of Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally is that the Occupy Wall Streeters contain some of the same very elements: the gold standarders, the end-the-Feders — even though those voices were marginalized.
The protesters in Cairo during the Arab spring proved obviously enormously influential on this movement, with The Occupied Wall Street Journal trumpeting a timeline of influence to the movement that traces everything as far back as Mohamed Bouazizi’s self-immolation early this year. October 18th, Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig was giving a teach-in in McPherson Square, lightly browbeating a protester for his refusal to work with the tea party. And I was there listening to Mr. Lessig, even though he was looking very hip to the crowd.
In Egypt, Coptic Christians were the subjects of merciless persecution, seeing their churches bombed and their adherents murdered semi-routinely. But at the time of the actions in Cairo, those emblematic images of Christians circling praying Muslims to defend their right to pray in public rightfully stood as testimonials to the power of people against the elites, who endlessly, ruthlessly exploit divide-and-conquer tactics. Back then, before President Morsi’s Islamists drummed out regular elections, it looked like Egypt could unite around a cause bigger than cause, and that Americans could unite around a cause bigger than money. Now taxes on the wealthy are higher than the Bush era, and Congress is more unpopular than ever.
Pro-Manning Protesters Outside of Fort Meade Tuesday
WASHINGTON – Retired Colonel Dan Choike, the former commander of Marine Corps Base Quantico, at which Private Bradley Manning was held, took the stand Tuesday and shed more light on the public relations and mental health concerns surrounding the incarceration of the Army intelligence analyst whose “Cablegate” document provisions to WikiLeaks sparked a global conflagration, culminating in the Arab Spring and the Occupy movement. Senior Quantico Marine officers anticipated ongoing complaints about the private’s treatment, and disregarded repeated advice from base forensic psychiatrists that the private did not need to be on suicide watch. Outright disagreement continued regarding the facts of an incident in which Private Manning alleges he was forced to stand naked. Col. Choike claims that he was offered a suicide smock and a blanket but refused those coverings.
Defense attorney David Coombs asked Col. Choike if he “knew” that Private Manning was asked to “put the blanket [covering him] back” when ordered to stand up. First the colonel replied simply, “no,” before adding to the attorney, “You’re talking hypotheticals.” As this exchange proceeded the private watched with wider, more interested eyes than usual, biting his lips.
Black-and-white factual disagreement also exists as to whether Private Manning was allowed only 20 minutes, as opposed to a full hour, of “sunshine call,” time outside in shackles.
The commander consistently ignored the advice of two psychiatrists, and Captain William Hoctor and Colonel Rick Malone — Capt. Hoctor’s advice particularly because one of his patients had recently killed himself while in the brig only a couple of weeks into his detention.
Presented exhibits included a “standard confinement pillow;” a “suicide mattress;” a green “suicide smock,” a cousin to the straitjacket; and two nooses — one a peach-colored makeshift bedsheet noose, the other constructed from sandbag ties. While defense counsel were quick to chime in that Private Manning had used neither noose, later this week Private Manning would testify to having made the bedsheet noose during his initial detention in Kuwait, a time during which American politicians and media personalities were roundly calling for the prisoner’s execution. Col. Choike cited factors that encouraged him to disregard psychiatrists’ advice that Manning not any longer be required to be put on suicide watch, a condition that would necessitate his wearing a chafing, restrictive smock the private claims gave him rub burns. Col. Choike, now a civilian employed at Stafford, Virginia’s Technology Associates, said the “seriousness” of Private Manning’s charges, “strained family relationships” and “erratic behavior” contributed to the continuing suicide watch. The “erratic behavior,” testified Col Choike, included “playing peek-a-boo,” “erratic dancing” and licking the bars of his cell.
Incredibly defense counsel claimed that the bar-licking might have been due to sleepwalking caused by anti-anxiety agents given to Private Manning. Neither side offered any details on the specific prescription medications given to Private Manning, but Capt. Hoctor said that Private Manning’s medication could cause sleepwalking and allegedly the bar-licking.
Col. Choike said that, instead of Capt. Hoctor and Col. Malone, he deferred to the chain of command and specifically the judgment of a dentist in charge of the Quantico medical clinic.
Both sides agree that Private Manning communicated to a guard that if he really wanted to hurt himself he could do with his waistband or his flip-flops. Col. Choike said that that guard took the statement so seriously that he relayed the concern to Barnes. In Mr. Coombs’ questioning of Col. Choike, he said that Private Manning was merely commenting on the absurdity of his being on suicide watch, a status that denied him more comfortable bedding and underwear to sleep in at night. Col. Choike said that subordinates did not make him aware that Private Manning was smiling when he made the observation, as Mr. Coombs implied.
Upon being questioned by David Coombs, Col. Choike disavowed the tone of a Dr. Seuss-ian poem in an email by Marine Corps legal counsel Christopher Greer to Col. Choike:
“I can wear them in a box. I can wear them with a fox. I can wear them in the day. I can wear them so I say. But I can’t wear them at night. My comments gave the staff a fright.”
Brig Commander Col. Robert Oltman would respond to Lt. Col. Greer’s email by himself referencing “Green Eggs & Ham,” signing his name “Sam I am.” On Wednesday, when he took the stand, Col. Oltman said that it would have been irresponsible not to take what Manning’s “flip-flop” line as being serious. “You don’t joke about suicide,” Col. Oltman testified, according to Bradley Manning Support Group writer Nathan Fuller.
Given the generally high rate of guilty verdicts in military trials, and his own offers to make a conditional plea “by substitution,” Private Manning’s defense strategy over the next three months hinges on calls for sympathy based, respectively, on the length of his pre-trial incarceration (over 900 days), and the severity of his treatment during that time. Private Manning will try to cut deals in which each day of his upcoming will count for multiple days, depending on how much defense counsel can impress upon Judge Denise Lind the degree of unpleasantness in at least 23-hour-a-day lockdowns in a 6-foot-by-8-foot cell. Private Manning has called for a dismissal of his case due to a claim that his right to a speedy trial was ignored.
David Coombs and prosecutor Major Ashden Fein are locked in a chicken-and-egg argument on the relationship between precautions allegedly intended to prevent Private Manning’s suicide, and those measures’ ironic, potential debilitating effects on Private Manning’s state of mind. The private’s treatment faced such scrutiny that it was enough to elicit criticism from a State Department spokesman and a U.N. special rapporteur on torture. Throughout his hours of questioning Tuesday’s witness Mr. Coombs tried to highlight for the judge and the press in attendance a contrast in the levels of attention Col. Choike and his superiors paid to public relations management of Private Manning’s incarceration, as opposed to the prisoner’s actual treatment.
Observers to the first day of the trial included Maryland Green Party Senate candidate and attorney Kevin Zeese and Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst who briefed multiple presidents on the Soviet Union during the Cold War. As the trial was on recess, waiting in the observers trailer next to the courtroom, Mr. McGovern communicated his confidence that there was a net social benefit to Private Manning’s leaking of secret-classified documents. Near and dear to Mr. McGovern’s heart is fragmentary order (FRAGO) 242, revealed via the Iraq War logs, which Mr. McGovern said was the brain-child of now resigned CIA director David Petraeus, who then served as the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.
Field reports, made available through Private Manning’s infractions, reveal a tolerance of detainee abuse by occupying U.S. authorities, in light of FRAGO 242, named in one May 16, 2005 instance as: “Provided the initial report [of abuse] confirms US forces were not involved in the detainee abuse, no further investigation will be conducted unless directed by [higher headquarters].”
A November 29, 2005 press conference provides an exchange in contradiction with this fragmentary order, during which then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs Chair General Peter Pace exhibited differing perspectives on the blind eye UPI’s Pam Hess said the U.S. military was turning to prisoner abuse by Iraqi security forces, who Secretary Rumsfeld opined were doing a “darn good job.”
General Pace said, “It is absolutely the responsibility of every U.S. service member, if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to intervene to stop it. As an example of how to do it if you don’t see if happening but you’re told about it is exactly what happened a couple weeks ago. There’s a report from an Iraqi to [General Karl Horst] that there is possibility of inhumane treatment in a particular facility. That U.S. commander got together with his Iraqi counterparts. They went together to the facility, found what they found, reported it to the Iraqi government, and the Iraqi government has taken ownership of that problem and is investigating it. So they did exactly what they should have done.
Secretary Rumsfeld said, “But I don’t think you mean they have an obligation to physically stop it. It’s to report it.”
To this General Pace offered contradiction, “If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it.”
Ray McGovern published a blog post Wednesday that details his own take on Private Manning’s treatment, which takes much inspiration from The Guardian’s reporting on the revelations Private Manning brought to the eyes of the world. Secretary Rumsfeld did publicly urge the Iraqi government to investigate grisly examples of prisoner abuse, while insisting on deferring to Iraq’s own investigative mechanisms, citing the occupied nation’s “sovereignty.”
From The Guardian:
A man who was detained by Iraqi soldiers in an underground bunker reported that he had been subjected to the notoriously painful strappado position: with his hands tied behind his back, he was suspended from the ceiling by his wrists. The soldiers had then whipped him with plastic piping and used electric drills on him. The log records that the man was treated by US medics; the paperwork was sent through the necessary channels; but yet again, no investigation was required.
The court has ruled that Private Manning’s own motives or the effects of his leaks, as The Internet Chronicle has previously reported while attending a pre-trial session, are to have no effect on the outcome on his sentence or charges. As evinced by the private two consective nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize, his motives have elicited widespread laud.
As The Internet Chronicle reported last April, David Coombs’ pre-trial arguments suggested the possibility that Private Manning may have exercised personal discretion in his choice of particular documents to hand off to WikiLeaks, leaving open the possibility that the private may have removed information to protect U.S. assets, techniques, tactics and procedures. However, as was reported, “the defense’s suggestions that Private Manning, Mr. Fein argued, had performed self-redactions to mitigate damage were not material; the defendant, he said, lacked the direct knowledge as well as the original classification authority (OCA) to properly make such an assessment [of what to leak].”
In conversation with Kevin Zeese in the parking lot of the Fort Meade base theater, long-time source Mr. Zeese contended that, had any harm come to a U.S. serviceman or servicewoman, as a result of Private Manning’s leaks, political pressure would have been too seductive to avoid placing this additional heat on the private, despite the State Department’s standard line, dating back to December 2010, that it does not comment on leaked classified information.
“If the government could show the documents Manning released caused direct harm they would jump at the opportunity,” said Mr. Zeese. “I would be surprised if they didn’t.”
ARLINGTON, VA. – A piece of heavy U.S. munitions, made famous by a mistakenly published 2001 Associated Press photo, exploded Sunday in Kandahar province, Afghanistan, after being buried for 10 years, killing two civilians.
[T]hings like FDNY or I [heart] NY . . . That’s more keeping in line with what we want to do.” – Rear Admiral Stephen Pietropaoli (Photo courtesy: AP)
In response Afghan President Hamid Karzai expressed broader concerns about unexploded ordnance in his country. During its daily briefing Monday Defense Department sources cautioned that the accidental detonation of 2,000-pound Joint Direct Attack Munition Guided Bomb Unit-31 represented a rare circumstance related to the Afghans’ greater weights, characteristic of males, as well as the close proximity of their respective pressures upon the buried warhead.
“As always we are enormously sorry for any and all civilian casualties and take great pains to avoid them,” read Pentagon Press Secretary George Little from a statement. “These deaths play no part in winning hearts and minds in the struggle to train Afghans to defend their own sovereignty, and we extend our sympathies to the families of those involved.”
Asked about what could have led to the spontaneous detonation of the bomb, Mr. Little detailed the findings of Army investigators. Pentagon teams, working round the clock, concluded that the two Afghans likely triggered the dormant bomb through a mutual stamping on precise locations on the sand above the bomb.
“Military police,” said Mr. Little, “suggest that coordinated fouetté jetés, perhaps synchronized revoltades, or maybe just the conclusion of an old-fashioned set of skips, caused the deadly explosion — the civilian men of course holding hands, their fingertips in all likelihood resting on each other’s middle phalanxes.”
The bomb gained fame in 2001 for a photograph the Associated Press’s Jockel Finck took aboard the USS Enterprise of graffito scrawled along its surface: “High jack this fags.” AP Spokesman Jack Stokes apologized for the “journalistic error” of the publishing’s pulling back the curtain on institutional homophobia, explaining “the picture never should have gotten through, and nobody should have seen it.”
Speaking with Joshua Hammer, special to the International Herald Tribune, Shorabak district elders described the lives of the Afghan casualties — Haji Olumi, 40, and Khalid Mohammed, 18 — the ostracism their relationship received under the brutal reign of the Taliban, and very recently, the acceptance of their partnership. Said Sayyad Sabri, “Before the blessed arrival of NATO in 2001 we used to persecute the lovers all the time — throwing stones at them, threatening to kill them. But due to the tireless humanitarian enlightenment provided by our moral saviors, the International Security Assistance Force — spurred on by liberal lights in the darkness, such as Amnesty International — we had gradually grown to accept them.”
“Mr. Sabri began to speak again but abruptly choked up thinking about Olumi and Mohammed, trying to hide tears behind his simple burlap sleeves. ‘But now this. But now this! Right when we had learned to accept them. It is as though God does not wish for us to ever forget our national shame for the attacks of 9/11.’”
Speaking to The Internet Chronicle, an associate for U.S.-based military contractor DynCorp recalled meeting Mr. Mohammed in 2009 while the man served as “bacha bazi” entertainer on the company dime. Although Mr. Mohammed’s face is since obscured by mutilation from the Operation Enduring Freedom munition, the associate, who used to conduct house-to-house searches in Kandahar province, said he recognized the young man. “The darkened room was really smokey at the time, and I guess he was wearing a little less makeup a few years back,” said the DynCorp associate, as he leaned to squint at the autopsy photo on the marble-top coffee table in his McLean, Virginia living room. “But no doubt that’s the guy. A damn shame what happened to him. He had a great body. I’ll never forget the beautiful jingling of all those bells they made him wear.”
“What exactly is wrong with the fag bomb?” asked Washington Post Columnist Hank Stuever in 2001. “Wrong, that is, besides the typos,” he arrogantly continued in prudish contempt for naval enlistees, as well as obliviousness to the manual intercourse allusion. Mr. Stuever, who coined the term “fag bomb,” conducted an interview with an Admiral Stephen Pietropaoli in 2001, during which the officer characterized the slur as “not up to our standards,” despite a contemporaneous policy of systematic bigotry throughout military branches (although notoriously almost never having been enforced in the Navy).
Only slightly lower down the bastions of the socialist media, Katherine Mulvaney, then at elite Southwest Texas State University’s Daily University Star, offered her pity and condescension regarding the mind-set of U.S. servicemen. The average enlistees, Ms. Mulvaney explained, were “young kids, many or most of them without a college education, so inarticulate, they are driven to use playground epithets to express their rage over the terrorist attacks.” She wrote that Southwest Texas University’s “comfortable and enlightened” surroundings provided her due objectivity and insight through the fog of war. With a prophesying telepathy — possessed only by the likes of Edgar Cayse or L. Ron Hubbard — of the tolerant 2011 military to come, the columnist concluded, “Let’s worry about winning the war right now. We can civilize our fighters later, when the bigger job is done.”
In 2001 the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was still well-known among front-line troops for upholding morale, instilling group solidarity and for suppressing what Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Martin Dempsey termed “nearly inevitable bromance.” Before the discontinuation of “don’t ask, don’t tell” servicemen could reliably bathe, defecate or even masturbate in each other’s presence, assured that any homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, transgenders or hermaphrodites nearby were either actively lying, conspicuously silent about intimate partners past and present, or lacking the emotional intelligence to recognize, daresay articulate, their own deepest urges.
WASHINGTON – Wednesday afternoon the White Phone got on the record with Scott Horton, lecturer-at-law at Columbia University and Harper’s columnist, after catching an informative at Fordham University panel discussion on C-SPAN. There on October 16 Mr. Horton had characterized the whistleblower status of Army Private Bradley Manning as tenuous. Private Manning’s alleged leaking, Mr. Horton said at Fordham, did not utilize “the sort of filtering” the professor associated with whistle-blowing. Seemingly contradicting the probable defense arguments of the private’s attorneys, Mr. Horton added the claim that Private Manning released “all the confidential cable traffic that he was able to access.”
Military prosecutor have accused Private Manning of leaking thousands of classified State Department cables to WikiLeaks, the transparency advocate organization since beleaguered by rape accusations against its founder and a multinational financial blockade.
Mr. Horton touted his own work with whistleblowers at the Abu Ghraib facility and — as he had at Fordham — suggested that Private Manning would have had better luck exposing systemic criminality apparent in the cables by approaching inspectors general or Congress itself. This approach, he suggested, might have angered military brass but would have left them unable to intimidate or silence the private, who has faced months of solitary confinements and now multiple decades of his life in military detention.
In a Fort Meade pre-trial hearing Manning attorney David Coombs made inquiry as to whether any screening and pre-censorship of the cables by Private Manning could affect either charges and sentencing. Mr. Horton’s asserting this month that Manning had just leaked all available cables writ large is troubled by the easy-to-anticipate claim by his attorneys that the private had exercised some degree of discretion. The leaking of the entirety of what was cables provided probably by Manning was the product of coordinated operational security bungling by a Guardian reporter, who headlined a chapter in a book about WikiLeaks with the password used to unlock an aggregate file, and a WikiLeaks associate who, upon leaving the organization, shuffled a version of the insurance file onto a public service. In 2011 Internet Chronicle researchers attempted to plug the Guardian password into the “insurance file,” the one publicly available on torrent via The Pirate Bay, to no avail.
Asked about statements by Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy (D-VT) accusing the “Cablegate” documents of leading to real casualties in the Afghanistan-Pakistan military theater, Mr. Horton characterized the senator’s statements as “foolish” and a parroting of the administration’s overblown estimations of the cables’ impact. Speaking from his New York City office, the professor said that it wasn’t clear that anyone had been physically harmed by the leaks, whether they had been informants to the International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF; or servicemen and servicewomen themselves.
In the wake of her groundbreaking expose on the ever-expanding veil of government secrecy, in 2011 The Internet Chronicle consulted Washington Post reporter Dana Priest on the reputed harm caused by the “Cablegate” documents. Last year on September 7 The Internet Chronicle asked Ms. Priest about the nature of the intentions of those who claim to be concerned about the potential deaths of civilian informants or human rights activists following the recent, unredacted leak of the diplomatic cables. This reporter confused the host of the event, seated away from Ms. Priest’s microphone, with William Arkin, the Post report’s co-author, to whom he bore a vague resemblance.
Chad Lemieux fears the possibility of being unable to charge his phone.
SOUTHAMPTON, N.Y. — North Americans are glued to their TV sets as they watch two powerful storm systems converge, in real time, over a large portion of the Eastern Seaboard known to be inhabited by white people.
Weather.com’s Shep Shepard reported live from the beachfront where water and foam sprayed up onto the boardwalk. “We’ve never seen anything like it, John. Never before have Americans witnessed a storm so potentially threatening to the security of middle-class whites.”
Water and power outages could mean days or even a week without access to Reddit, except on a smartphone, which Southern Manhattan and Park Slope residents complain is inconvenient.
“It’s downright patronizing,” said New Jersey man Ryan Johnson. “I refuse to zoom in on every comment.”
Area whites complain that without access to water, they could be forced to go days without showering. Brooklyn resident Sherry Melville said the storm couldn’t have come at a worse time. “When sitting alone in a dark house, we need to feel clean all the time. I just feel so, y’know, ugh! I’m going to take a long bath soon, just in case.”
President Barack Obama showed leadership Sunday when he used a string of official-sounding words on the radio, putting his white constituency at ease and ensuring the FEMA vote. Area whites were ordered to evacuate or else stay indoors. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney spoke to reporters Monday and said, “As if they were planning on going outside, the president has asked New York and New Jersey residents to remain indoors. We ask that you refresh his Twitter feed for instant updates on what he is doing for you.”
It is unclear what trajectories Hurricane Sandy and the cold front moving in from the west may take, but authorities have already come forward and promised to renovate many parts of Northern Virginia, even those areas untouched by Hurricane Sandy to be sure Macy’s and Best Buys in the area go unaffected in preparation for Black Friday.
This message brought to you proudly by Lebal Drocer, Inc.
We own everything that matters.
WASHINGTON – The trailer for an upcoming film on the U.S. raid that killed Osama bin Laden inaccurately represents tactics and techniques, thereby overstating pre-operational uncertainty regarding the terrorist leader’s hideout presence. While producing “Seal Team Six: The Raid on Osama bin Laden,” which National Geographic plans to air in the 48 hours before Election Day, Kathryn Bigelow consulted with senior White House, Defense Department and Central Intelligence Agency officials.
On its YouTube channel below the video, National Geographic writes, “Don’t miss the World Premiere of National Geographic Channel’s very first feature-length film inspired by true events.”
To synopsize the trailer, as two men surveil from an adjacent structure the Abbottabad, Pakistan compound using conventional photography, actor William Fichtner — his character, “Guidry,” briefing seated intelligence analysts — relates that an al-Qaida courier has identified the location of a “suspected” high-value target.
As the trailer flashes to distant, blurry image from an unmanned aerial vehicle of an individual’s far-away profile, Guidry says that analysts have recognized “a man who appears taller than the rest.” A brief flash at 30 seconds — and again later in the trailer — shows aerial imagery, emphasizing the distance at which the CIA supposedly had to observe the target.
Then, a still shot of President Barack Obama and a voice-over together communicate that the president is staking his re-election on “this call.”
At 1:30, an authority, presumably a military official, asks, “So you’re still not sure if the target’s in there? You’re still not 100 percent?” To this Guidry replies, “A hundred percent’s hard to come by these days.”
John Young of Cryptome.org on August 6, 2011 pointed out problems with these types of hyped uncertainty claims as to bin Laden’s presence in the Abbottabad compound.
With emphasis added, most of note in relationship to this trailer are:
1. “A British newpaper Independent got the drawings shortly after the raid (a third floor added later). These detailed plans show the underground septic system for the house, a favorite means of gathering DNA and other evidence of occupants, as well as running sensors up the waste lines.”
2. “2. CIA has a slew of sensors to establish who occupies a structure, where they are located, what they talk about, when they eat and sleep. Sensors that read signals of window panes from distance, sensors down plumbing ventilation piping, sensors attached to plumbing and electrical systems, sensors attached to reinforcing bars sticking out of the top of the bin Laden House, sensors on drones and in nearby structures and heaved over and buried in the walls and dropped on the roof. Sensors in food supplies and medicines and clothing and vehicles. Tunnels under the house, piece of cake, water table not a barrier. Remote capture of emanations from electronic devices and video displays.”
3. “Not true that drones, [satellites] and ground-based cameras could not photograph bin Laden sufficiently to identify him” — emphasizing the proximity and size of the hill overlooking the walled terrace. The hill also overlooks the closed-in balcony on the third floor.
Hill Overlooking Walled Terrace, via Cryptome: Imagery of the distance and consequent operational uncertainty implied in the National Geographic trailer mislead.
Following up on Freedom of Information Act requests, in May Judicial Watch detailed the level of White House-facilitated Defense Department and CIA briefing given to the creators of “Zero Dark Thirty,” a topical Sony Pictures film Ms. Bigelow was producing simultaneously, including her meeting with the CIA.
In one of the emails Commander Bob Mehal, a communications adviser to the intelligence undersecretary of defense, reports to Defense Department Public Affairs, that “Zero Dark Thirty’s” writer, Mark Boal, had made overtures to DOD by saying that Mr. Boal was not interested in disclosing techniques, tactics and procedures, and that Mr. Boal “indicated that he was proud of not giving anything away in” the Bigelow-directed “The Hurt Locker.” Commander Mehal related that “USDI” — rather, he speaking for the Office of Defense Intelligence Undersecretary Michael Vickers — told the “Hurt Locker” writer that the bin Laden operation involved a “60-80% of certainty based on the Intell [sic]” and constituted a “‘gutsy decision’ by the [president],” adding that White House “involvement was critical.”
In reference to the larger-screen account of Operation Neptune Spear, “Zero Dark Thirty,” New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote in August 2011 that the White House was “counting on the Kathryn Bigelow . . . version of the killing of Bin Laden to counter Obama’s growing reputation as ineffectual,” adding that Ms. Bigelow’s production would “no doubt reflect the president’s cool, gutsy decision against shaky odds.”
In response to complaints of “Seal Team Six’s” politicization of events, National Geographic released a statement:
SEAL TEAM SIX is a film that will provide our viewers with the first full length dramatization detailing one of the war on terrorism’s most crucial and historic events. It also showcases the extraordinary bravery and resourcefulnessof the United States military and national security teams. The National Geographic Channel has no political agenda, and believes that audiences can and will judge projects of this type on their own merits. National Geographic Channel also has a reputation of getting inside access, and bringing big events to our viewers first — for instance, we were the first and only network to have an exclusive with George W. Bush for the 10th Anniversary of 9/11 (our highest rated show last year). SEAL TEAM SIX is a drama inspired by the real events of how the U.S. finally found Osama bin Laden in the network’s first feature film and scripted project marking the continued expansion of our programming. [emphases added]
OpenSecrets.org, a database maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics, accounts that Ms. Bigelow donated $200 to President Obama’s re-election effort in November 2011. “Seal Team Six” Director John Stockwell donated $250 to the campaign August 23. Those are the creators’ only known direct-to-candidate political contributions for the 2012 cycle.
Xzibit, of Meme Fame, to Portray “Mule” in “Seal Team Six”
EARTH – Gangnam Style has finally reached the eyes and ears of every living human being.
Gangnam Style is pouring from every orifice of the Internet and daytime television. Gangnam Style permeated American culture faster than you could hook a USB stick up to it via Ellen, Shoenice, local weather guys all across morning news and YouTube user holy-fuck-let’s-not-get-carried-away-with-ourselves-oh-what-the-hell-the-faster-you-can-make-them-the-better.
Gangnam Style took the world by storm.
Indonesian day laborers, Thai sweatshop workers, the American homeless, people in South and Central Africa have come into close personal contact of some form with Gangnam Style. Even Eritrean refugees, once forced by the government to spend their entire lives face down on a bed of sand, are now allowed two provisions: the continuation of life in a sand prison, and enjoyment of Gangnam Style in as many different configurations of which they can think.
Played in every bar across the planet, individuals who once chose to suffocate themselves with alcohol to escape from the very reality Gangnam Style satirizes, are now caught up in the number one PSY’Sssick beats of self-awareness-pumping Gangnam Style. Get all in that decadence InFiltrator style, and pump, pump, pump it up. And blow it down.
Gangnam Style is more than a style.
Gangnam Style has so fractured the spiritual world, cult voids that once insulated us from the vacuum of transhuman insanity are bleeding onto the pages of human history because they’re allowing Gangnam Style in schools. For some, Gangnam Style has replaced God. More literal translations of Gangnam Proverbs differentiate Gangnam Style from PSY, its creator. Fundamentalist Gangnam Style has solidified in the brittle cracks of the fractured cult plane and begun to infect the consciousness of world leaders.
The United Kingdom Parliament, for example, has been replaced by a mathematically perfect array of beautiful young women on all fours, poking their asses toward the sky. Prime Minister David Cameron’s new role is to stand over them, fixated on the boundless sexual potential of iPhone-hungry children just starving for exploitation, and to celebrate this bounty with caricatured renditions of Gangnam Style.
No one can really say what’s next for PSY, or if the Gangnam Style worldview is versatile enough to adapt to the shifting cult plane.
Dozens of Gangnam Temples have already sprung up across the East Coast. There is even debate whether to allow a controversial Gangnam Temple to be built near Ground Zero in New York City, for fear it could spark waves of ironic self-protest against the Capitalist agenda that control-demolished Towers 1 and 2.
TL;DR Those towers were meant to fall, and Gangnam Style took them down.
WASHINGTON – In the past month an anti-Islam film trailer for a movie called “The Innocence of Muslims” has triggered a international debate about free speech and the murder of 50 people. The director, an Egyptian national and convicted methamphetamine distributor by the name of Nakoula Nakoula, now faces up to three years in U.S. prison for lying to probation officers about his role in the creation of the trailer. Numerous countries, including Egypt, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, India and Singapore, have blocked the video. Turkey, Brazil and Russia have taken steps to see the video blocked.
A Pakistani man this week offered $200,000 to anyone who would kill Mr. Nakoula.
Before serious violent protests initiated in Egypt on September 11, Embassy Cairo officials responded to growing local disgust with the film by releasing a statement that violation of “religious feelings” was outside of a reasonable interpretation of a universal value of freedom of expression. The Weekly Standard would in the coming day incorrectly imply — by using the term “meanwhile” to describe the timeline of the release of the embassy’s statement vis-a-vis the violent protests — that the statements were in response to what would be the actually eventual climbing of the embassy walls by an angry crowd and the burning of its flag. The same day Republican President Nominee Mitt Romney would attack the White House for the embassy’s statements.
An ABC/Washington Post poll released Saturday showed a 15-point dip in President Barack Obama’s credibility on international affairs among political independents compared to Mr. Romney, the likely additional consequence of an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Libya and a nearby safe house that left dead Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
Speaking with Politico on the Eastern Seaboard in the hours after the attack in Egypt, the White House would walk back Embassy Cairo’s statement, saying that it did not reflect the White House’s own view. But in the past week President Obama spoke before the U.N. General Assembly to the effect that:
“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.”
Speaking during the same session, Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi would articulate his view that a right to freedom of speech could not rightfully apply to an attack on a “religion or cult.”
Mr. Obama’s expression at the United Nations comes 25 years after the release of “Piss Christ,” a National Endowment for the Arts-sponored photograph of a crucifix submerged in artist Andres Serrano’s urine. Persecution of Christians, particularly Coptics such as Mr. Nakoula, is about as bad in Egypt as in any other country.
In mid-September, The New York Times’ Claire Cain Miller, after having spoken to Google representatives, wrote that the company’s decision to keep the video up in the United States was due to its content being “against the Islam religion but not Muslim people.” Even the title of trailer however seems to indict Muslims personally. Indeed the trailer attacks the character of Mohammed, albeit in crass tones, Islam’s founding figure and obviously a Muslim himself, for his having sought a nine-year-old wife, a widely acknowledged historical event.