text:
VIEWS: 16 PAGES: 107 POSTED ON: 11/1/2013 Public Domain
1. On NSA claims about misreporting of two slides NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander asserted yesterday that two "Boundless Informant" slides we published - one in Le Monde and the other in El Mundo - were misunderstood and misinterpreted. The NSA then dispatched various officials to the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post to make the same claim, and were (needless to say) given anonymity by those papers to spout off without accountability. Several US journalists (also needless to say) instantly treated the NSA's claims as gospel even though they (a) are accompanied by no evidence, (b) come in the middle of a major scandal for the agency at home and abroad and (c) are from officials with a history of lying to Congress and the media. That is the deeply authoritarian and government-subservient strain of American political and media culture personified: if a US national security official says something, then it shall mindlessly be deemed tantamount to truth, with no evidence required and without regard to how much those officials have misled in the past. EFF's Trevor Timm last night summarized this bizarre mentality as follows: "Oh, NSA says a story about them is wrong? Well, that settles that! Thankfully, they never lie, obfuscate, mislead, misdirect, or misinform!" Over the last five months, Laura Poitras and I have published dozens and dozens of articles reporting on NSA documents around the world: with newspapers and a team of editors and other reporters in the US, UK, Germany, Brazil, India, France and Spain. Not a single one of those articles bears even a trivial correction, let alone a substantive one, because we have been meticulous in the reporting, worked on every article with teams of highly experienced editors and reporters, and, most importantly, have published the evidence in the form of NSA documents that prove the reporting true. It's certainly possible that, like all journalists, we'll make a mistake at some point. And if and when that does happen, we'll do what good journalists do: do further reporting and, if necessary, correct any inaccuracy. But no evidence of any kind (as opposed to unverified NSA accusations) has been presented that this was the case here, and ample evidence strongly suggests it was not: First, these exact same Boundless Informant documents have been used by newspapers around the world in exactly the same way for months. The NSA never claimed they were inaccurate until yesterday: when it is engulfed by major turmoil over spying on European allies. More than three months ago - in late June - Der Spiegel published an article under the headline "Partner and Target: NSA Snoops on 500 Million German Data Connections." It reported that the Boundless Informant documents "reveal that the American intelligence service monitors around half a billion telephone calls, emails and text messages in the country every month." The report was based on the same set of documents, for the same time period, as the one published in France and Spain: The statistics, which SPIEGEL has also seen, show that data is collected from Germany on normal days for up to 20 million telephone calls and 10 million Internet data exchanges. Last Christmas Eve, it collected data on around 13 million phone calls and about half as many online exchanges. On the busiest days, such as January 7 of this year, the information gathered spiked to nearly 60 million communication connections under surveillance. A similar article, using the same set of documents, was published in Brazil's O Globo a week later, reporting the NSA's collection of the data for more than 2 billion calls and emails in Brazil in a single month. Another article, in the Indian daily the Hindu, reported on bulk collection of the data of calls in India based on the same document set. And the very first article on Boundless Informant documents was published in the first week of our reporting in the Guardian, and detailed how this set of documents "details and even maps by country the voluminous amount of information it collects from computer and telephone networks." Those documents, we reported, "show the agency collecting almost 3 billion pieces of intelligence from US computer networks over a 30-day period ending in March 2013." The article detailed several country-specific metadata totals based on those documents. Nobody from the US government ever once - over the last four months - claimed that any of this reporting was inaccurate. The US government was asked for comment on all of these stories, including the ones in France and Spain, and never once claimed it was mistaken. That's because this is exactly what these Boundless Informant documents show. Perhaps journalists should exercise a bit of skepticism - demand some evidence - when the NSA suddenly claims these documents are misreported in the midst of one of the agency's worst scandals in history. Second, note what the NSA is not denying: that they collect the data on the communications activities of millions and millions of people in European countries. They claim that these two slides in particular have been misinterpreted, but have not denied the story itself. Third, look at the NSA's own documents, and see how they themselves describe what these Boundless Informant documents actually count. As part of our reporting in early June at the Guardian on these documents, we published in full the NSA's own document about what data is counted. Those interested should read the full document, but here are the relevant excerpts (emphasis added): BOUNDLESSINFORMANT is a GAO [Global Access Operations, a branch of the NSA] prototype tool for a self-documenting SIGINT system. . . BOUNDLESSINFORMANT provides the ability to dynamically describe GAO's collection capabilities (through metadata record counts) with no human intervention and graphically display the information in a map view, bar chart, or simple table. . . . By extracting information from every DNI and DNR metadata record, the tool is able to create a near real-time snapshot of GAO's collection capability at any given moment. The tool allows users to select a country on a map and view the metadata volume and select details about the collection against that country. The tool also allows users to view high level metrics by organization and then drill down to a more actionable level - down to the program and cover term. Could that be any clearer? These documents provide a "near real-time snapshot" of the NSA's "collection capability at any given moment". The documents show the collection efforts "against that country." Among the questions answered by these documents are "How many records are collected for an organizational unit" and "How many records (and what type) are collected against a particular country?" Fourth, the fact some of this data is collected by virtue of cooperation with a country's own intelligence service does not contradict our reporting. To the contrary: the secret cooperation between some European intelligence agencies and the NSA has been a featured part of our reporting from the start. Back in early July, der Spiegel, using Snowden documents and Snowden's own words, reported on extensive cooperation between the German BND and NSA. And this morning, in an article we prepared weeks ago, El Mundo published an article - using Snowden documents - reporting the cooperation between the Spanish intelligence service and the NSA. The NSA spies extensively with (but rarely on) its four closest, English-speaking surveillance allies in the "Five Eyes" group: the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. But for many European nations, the NSA cooperates with those nations' intelligence services but also spies on their populations and their governments without any such cooperation. That negates none of our reporting: it is simply a restatement of it. Finally, contrary to the suggestions of one particularly gullible reporter that these slides are fake and of unknown origin, their authenticity is beyond dispute, just like every document we've thus far published. A separate top secret NSA document on Boundless Informant, to be published very shortly, in its title describes Boundless Informant as "Describing Mission Capabilities from Metadata Records". The first page states that its purpose is to "describe the collection capabilities and posture of our SIGINT infrastructure". And it contains not only the Boundless Informant maps that were long ago published, but exactly the type of accompanying graphs that were published this week, taken from the same NSA electronic file. The core purpose of these Boundless Informant documents, it says, is to "review every valid DNI and DNR metadata record passing through the NSA SIGINT infrastructure": exactly what our reporting stated. Again, it's certainly possible, given the number of reports and the complexity of these matters, that reporters working on these stories will at some point make a mistake. All reporters do. But this thing called "evidence" should be required before blindly believing the claims and accusations of NSA officials. If that lesson hasn't been learned yet, when will it be? Postado há Yesterday por Glenn Greenwald 5 Visualizar comentários 2. Oct 26 Rep Rush Holt on "Stop Watching Us" Protest News from Representative Rush Holt 12th District, New Jersey http://www.holt.house.gov For Immediate Release Contact: Patrick Eddington October 26, 2013 HOLT STATEMENT ON "STOP WATCHING US" PROTEST ON PATRIOT ACT'S 12TH ANNIVERSARY (Washington, D.C.) – Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ), former chairman of the House Select Intelligence Oversight Panel, issued the following statement on the anit-domestic surveillance Stop Watching Us rally and protest on the National Mall, commemorating the 12th anniversary of the infamous PATRIOT Act becoming law: "The American patriots participating in this protest understand the fundamental truth I have articulated before: a true democracy does not treat its entire citizenry as suspects. The PATRIOT Act and the FISA Amendments Act do exactly that, which is why in August 2013 I offered the Surveillance State Repeal Act (H.R. 2818), which would repeal both of these laws and end the civil liberties abuses they have spawned. "I am grateful that key groups responsible for organizing this event—the Bill of Rights Defense Committee and CREDO Action—are long-time supporters of the bill. I hope every activist participating in this event in Washington and those supporting it around the country and online will join me in seeking an end to the American surveillance state by calling for swift passage of the Surveillance State Repeal Act." ### Postado há 5 days ago por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 3. Oct 15 Glenn Greenwald and the Guardian's statements Statement of Glenn Greenwald: "My partnership with the Guardian has been extremely fruitful and fulfilling: I have high regard for the editors and journalists with whom I worked and am incredibly proud of what we achieved. "The decision to leave was not an easy one, but I was presented with a once-in-a- career dream journalistic opportunity that no journalist could possibly decline. "Because this news leaked before we were prepared to announce it, I'm not yet able to provide any details of this momentous new venture, but it will be unveiled very shortly;" Statement of the Guardian's Jennifer Lindauer: "Glenn Greenwald is a remarkable journalist and it has been fantastic working with him. Our work together over the last year has demonstrated the crucial role that responsible investigative journalism can play in holding those in power to account. We are of course disappointed by Glenn's decision to move on, but can appreciate the attraction of the new role he has been offered. We wish him all the best." Postado há 3 weeks ago por Glenn Greenwald 8 Visualizar comentários 4. Sep 25 Khaled M tweets Postado há 25th September por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 5. Sep 8 NSA denial Washington Post, August 30, 2013 [asterisks in original]: U.S. intelligence services are making routine use around the world of government- built malware that differs little in function from the "advanced persistent threats" that U.S. officials attribute to China. The principal difference, U.S. officials told The Post, is that China steals U.S. corporate secrets for financial gain. "The Department of Defense does engage" in computer network exploitation, according to an e-mailed statement from an NSA spokesman, whose agency is part of the Defense Department. "The department does ***not*** engage in economic espionage in any domain, including cyber." Postado há 8th September por Glenn Greenwald 1 Visualizar comentários 6. Aug 16 Statement of Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard on NSA Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02) released the following statement on reports of thousands of privacy violations and illegal surveillance each year by the National Security Agency (NSA): "As more and more is revealed about the NSA's sweeping surveillance practices, we are just scratching the surface of the full scope of blatant violations of personal privacy and freedoms. The news today uncovering even more abuse and overreach is extremely troubling. It also raises more questions about how extensive and invasive these programs truly are. The American people deserve to know more about the extent of the NSA's intrusions on our civil liberties." Postado há 16th August por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 7. Aug 10 Media reaction to Obama's news conference Huffington Post: Drudge Report: National Journal: Slate's Dave Weigel: Huffington Post: Washington Post's Ezra Klein: New York Times Editorial Page: Postado há 10th August por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 8. Aug 7 "Conspiracy to silence" The claim: The actual words: AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org,The War and Peace Report. I'm Amy Goodman. I want to go back to Senator Saxby Chambliss, the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, to get Glenn Greenwald's response. During an appearance on MSNBC's Meet the Press, he said theNSA surveillance programs had uncovered information about the threats that prompted the U.S. to close 19 embassies in North Africa and Middle East. SEN. SAXBY CHAMBLISS: These programs are controversial. We understand that. They're very sensitive. But they're also very important, because they are what lead us to have the— or allow us to have the ability to gather this chatter that I referred to. If we did not have these programs, then we simply wouldn't be able to listen in on the bad guys. And I will say that it's the 702 program that has allowed us to pick up on this chatter. That's the program that allows us to listen overseas, not on domestic soil, but overseas. AMY GOODMAN: That was Senator Chambliss. Glenn Greenwald, your response? GLENN GREENWALD: You know, it's so ludicrous. For eight straight years, literally, Democrats, every time there was a terrorist alert or a terrorist advisory issued by the United States government in the middle of a debate over one of the Bush-Cheney civil liberties abuses, would accuse the United States government and the national security state of exaggerating terrorism threats, of manipulating advisories, of hyping the dangers of al- Qaeda, in order to distract attention away from their abuses and to scare the population into submitting to whatever it is they wanted to do. And so, here we are in the midst of, you know, one of the most intense debates and sustained debates that we've had in a very long time in this country over the dangers of excess surveillance, and suddenly an administration that has spent two years claiming that it has decimated al-Qaeda decides that there is this massive threat that involves the closing of embassies and consulates throughout the world. And within literally an amount of hours, the likes of Saxby Chambliss and Lindsey Graham join with the White House and Democrats in Congress—who, remember, are the leading defenders of theNSA at this point—to exploit that terrorist threat and to insist that it shows that the NSA and these programs are necessary. What that has to do with the ongoing controversy about the NSA is completely mystifying. Nobody has ever questioned or disputed that the U.S. government, like all governments around the world, ought to be eavesdropping and monitoring the conversations of people who pose an actual threat to the United States in terms of plotting terrorist attacks. The controversy is over the fact that they are sweeping up billions and billions of emails and telephone calls every single day from people around the world and in the United States who have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. And, if anything, the only thing that that controversy—the warning has to do with the current controversy is that the argument that a lot of analysts have made, very persuasively, is that when you have an agency that collects everything, it actually becomes harder, not easier, to detect actual terrorist plots and to find the actual terrorists. And if this agency really were devoted, if these surveillance programs were really devoted to finding terrorism, they would be much more directed and discriminating. But they're not. They're indiscriminate and limitless, and that's one of the problems. Postado há 7th August por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 9. Aug 5 PGP Public Key Email: email@example.com -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) mQINBFJiaFsBEACiK3ZEJ0uH7O8hZH8XHbNPxAk2+OxPATBgcmXcWGULXUeTsRys 3T/1aLIGPacuk717c+0FalNqtkqyz3HPaWsxU+q+AaTrKb51kaUgVKsGvyk1hZj3 nqCc6myx9fV0tHD9IBNAPWAR5pGSDC6GE384zPe8LqWfxvgR4exr4IpZmT1zSaXM hKRytclpRnDmAbdoBqjNAkFf/SLazrifq3/NUjhq9mkAMItQg+CfdtRw5+X6FgS9 nYM3sbK9eCLYPDsONiUn8wnkoADou9lCQN58BRtSJL79n+aSV9YYtRT5dvFoERwz zGRD4GAh6HGXfTQSZQURCmORolBWFULf7rwOvyGwgefwBnESy7PAR1jJMf0srdrE IPdMB0fgUARuY/THQ7pxnesIVGh0ObD3B3GrBhlYFz11BpLtuMEySRoDr9HmseLs VfAMkZqfj4Q1r38M7v7/G+vRDvkmklrd1ikaOxoxZSvRT1ghoXBgCXjx2waNZj9M GrVAqyd7jFcm/DeK9+Ep1jMeQacQcS5G+5hfgs24kP8512APftNcDwzEukpG0TDA q9DRR4Dr2HZTt8b0j1kkcDknLFGCfPpJw7xwrSiKkiPgN0jSJ6CxfkDLFo7uRkgl mGjg+MtlWVcE0t1qI7I1l5x9i70CB4ej6EfFNshdp3arO7iui8a78rd9lQARAQAB tCxHbGVubiBHcmVlbndhbGQgPGdsZW5uLmdyZWVud2FsZEByaXNldXAubmV0PokC PwQTAQIAKQUCUmJoWwIbAwUJB4TOAAcLCQgHAwIBBhUIAgkKCwQWAgMBAh4BAheA AAoJEPljGX/rOwQn4HUP+wS7VMEOfUoIe2UnU8229NE1Aq7pD1S//TsOyDGj7jWl RCN628U5D6EZDsMVaV7lzg99YEFLqA2CWDtBzMohHWpIBogVKC51gZUz5GOPo9jy Z7z8CMFnpyuV8lJdvZOhQ+vK1a7Pmqg6N/wDrozXfaelHCu1ZUeYSTUX1sE6PgzG YHQZooj4hGXmDuPo39guTwTDdZwOo0SGZ8F9XUE+2cyuWKRNQCzUATHqEVoxhEPY 8pFxLHFKMk8UikeH7RhxJcBQ8C8CB+xVc0TR0Rw27GAPxFKGRPlRWZ2Tj0SwgBld xQK/E6OGuxrDI/qy4vKncq4+xtlm9vhkMFwvb7thLSl/0h+VJVR3sbKkg8zOwl1Z l8e+4EXRPZiQCumcQDu27Hpjab6NxkrPiAQYWcVldr2J28G8yqNHSax0opniul8w qnLFHAERlEmD1zYZXfG0jeX/vtYxYPENazBzjtdxW9em3JB9vhahRyCel1AkUjLu Em+kQ0byFSzf8uzslHo1XCTEDHvBIfyPGvKZRnXONmT7se2+QI5nJLw9qUVLFJYY /KrYp0t2e8usA31ex9Zz2f1TtcZfHKUO/A4cMDrIs1s6XrJiMO60pCC7SMZCCIg5 46BaTRj8vofQPXH/FP255kqudiGOxiZ7GT6ubWV5zoNkadSRaF2r1JXfZLOLkbsc uQINBFJiaFsBEAC4IeRcFhQ8IizoEhdnWQG7RWgZxsa05GRbEhEKNg9ccETBE9+O rkdCXUiVgQagmLnWU0RSi9nbjkOoW7ajsTQKXcB3g+a/nFz4hXs+pEW24XNZX6sE UOjrGF3XIGbYcTmJx6DXZyv3fGZWsJfN3hpObhweW2BGAnior2xvFhVWLWMT8eaB 1qvS0GtvnoviVCr7a7DPqV3cwyiqyRfMNXZxTvG9f+N5IVCVz5t+bl8386OUURkw 2/gfne8tBj1tJC17/TxDlFylMpI851D/9qeqBFpTcbHbMj4qWwqwI7gaZNkDbJZQ fRFadNSaZ/6Stat9VBUTMWUbMMBjckHOPTLAplPQo9ny8rBv+xo2FZRxYV46w8qL hj1F4bAw9nDFVp2TCzjT1aykHnFgIL3wNndSuDjpXmP6QObA6rpujRHB7bVhd6Vr B+73K5boQ8q6vPcFnjb83Ng6FaXWbYhfolQT36PLAdAXLAx6/2OZCKdveTkLFNQ+ 6E7ctYcRsFYhByA3180DHZPmdL+ZFmg0w2B5D+Lh78HhIRfPLKrpRMFRR+jNoF8k /W5QphhCwPXJobkQfDvKYz8E4pItozAAjoOUoqk6SzEQTg+TkBG3Uda4Ojq9XHAR tfcy2UWGzk5470oVBD5YihfkKJvvOa/pdhr8aeA8+I1F9tbQeQjp73tqxwARAQAB iQIlBBgBAgAPBQJSYmhbAhsMBQkHhM4AAAoJEPljGX/rOwQne2MP/2Ufbow1kFk0 9ccOrPYIH/IHDNkbyczqsCZHQTjgvccW3cJskNqKciW07XCNPeiGNKMdQu9Ko3ct 5OpmpBTPwyg01byAjqFJF9TAmV5v2LL0/r3flJLmbh8Cf5GghVOLMj59Ebl53tQx QLMN005O2yDMrQgT1CO8d9AiPqBgjVGNWOXmK/fip7Auwh5dlXWin9oDlldWcVAY elsdMEczbDXaHmamjpVAVbqmcq5sxyVvT0yX3ne/i6c+wCOBg4MbpdyLaLVBnIic g1ODynMuDrAkoCRFvuB1vhIEddqaVqUv4mgMuoBqR17GUDZDPkMuzHY6qIjYnUun DAXNuCsVxN+H1EBCXXzyvy8+GGEX7+k/CNY8mtJIS4Omaq/l7Z5P9q/smTdTmt60 HzII6f++czpX50io6JZyguyI/ppnmUjsouZzq5XxKfdh1B7CSJzGNXixOywEjFze jqF/K2jBzoFv5yjc5OhtNW7KrdrMm2CWMXURJKY0LugHnLZRhjJBBM+TIl4PS58S 79W8NCxA4SwAycWPfX88Ts1dgK9MZ2b58bmuL1r9o7d1MmUlm/6edRq3V3XguIQ4 rfma1cSwezIa8t+W56B83lnJcs4WVwtRPg/Ae8iMaalAXUCRCPY/4kDSFtISKgZ2 U7ArY0nHEeNtOqhhy21tikBCdB8YD1f+ =h4fZ -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Postado há 5th August por Glenn Greenwald 1 Visualizar comentários 10. Jul 27 Brazilian public reacts to NSA stories On July 15, 2013, Epoca, one of the two largest newsweeklies in Brazil, published a cover story on the NSA's bulk collection of the electronic communications data of tens of millions of Brazilians by tapping into Brazil's communication system, with this cover: [The caption reads: I Spy On You: No Brazilian Is Safe From The Electronic Surveillance of the US Government] The following week, July 23, Epoca published four (4) Letters To The Editor about this story. All 4 letters are below in their entirety, translated from Portuguese: ________________ EPOCA showed that the electronic surveillance system of the US government is far more pervasive than anyone imagined: LETTER ONE: Clarisse Renzini, Sao Paulo: The US thinks it is the owner of the world, which can do whatever it wants. It's not like this. A country does not have the right to invade the privacy of people around the world. Sometimes, conflicts are necessary to show that not everything is permitted. The absence of a reaction from Dilma and other leaders of the world shows the fear they have of the American military. LETTER TWO: Andrea Neves, Lavaras, Minas Gerais: I have nothing to hide. For me, Obama can sit and read my emails as much as he wants. But what an abuse of power this is, without doubt. LETTER THREE: Roberto Vidal, Belo Horizonte: They use terrorism as the justification for spying on the whole world. Of course, this has been happening for a long time now, and no nation has the courage to stand up to the US, so it all continues the same. LETTER FOUR: Pedro Luis Favaro, San Jose do Rio Preto: I don't see what's new. It's obvious that the US is spying on the whole world. They think they are the owners of everything. The spied-upon countries should unite to confront Obama and his spies. Postado há 27th July por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 11. Jul 25 Nancy Pelosi and Bush's NSA program Remember: this is the same Nancy Pelosi who spent years during the Bush administration pretending to be a vehement opponent of the illegal Bush NSA warrantless eavesdropping program after it was revealed by the New York Times, even though (just as was true of the Bush torture program) she was secretly briefed on it many years earlier when it was first implemented. At the end of June, we published the top secret draft report by the Inspector General's office of the NSA that was required to provide a comprehensive history of the NSA warrantless eavesdropping program secretly ordered by Bush in late 2001. That report included this passage: "Within the first 30 days of the Program, over 190 people were cleared into the Program. This number included Senators Robert Graham and Richard Shelby, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Counsel to the Vice President David Addington, and Presidential Assistant I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby." Postado há 25th July por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 12. Jul 24 Rush Holt: Repeal the Surveillance State Act News from Representative Rush Holt 12th District, New Jersey http://www.holt.house.gov For Immediate Release Contact: Chris Gaston July 24, 2013 202-225-5801 HOLT INTRODUCES "SURVEILLANCE STATE REPEAL ACT" Bill Would Repeal PATRIOT Act, Other Over-broad Surveillance Law (Washington, DC) Today Rep. Rush Holt introduced legislation to repeal federal surveillance laws that the government abused by collecting personal information on millions of Americans in violation of the Constitution, as revealed by a federal whistleblower and multiple media outlets last month. "As we now know, the National Security Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have been collecting the personal communications of literally millions of innocent Americans for no legitimate reason," said Holt. "Instead of using these powers to zero in on the tiny number of real terrorist threats we face, the executive branch turned these surveillance powers against the American people as a whole. My legislation would put a stop to that right now." Holt's bill, the "Surveillance State Repeal Act", would repeal the PATRIOT Act and the FISA Amendments Act, each of which contains provisions that allowed the dragnet surveillance. The bill would reinstate a uniform probable cause- based warrant standard for surveillance requests, and prohibit the federal government from forcing technology companies from building in hardware or software "back doors" to make it easier for the government to spy on the public. Additional features of the bill include the true legal protections for national security whistleblowers, as well as changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to give it greater expertise in reviewing and challenging executive branch applications for surveillance operations. "The executive branch's groundless mass surveillance of Americans has turned our conception of liberty on its head. My legislation would restore the proper constitutional balance and ensure our people are treated as citizens first, not suspects." Postado há 24th July por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 13. Jul 24 Democratic whip description of Amash/Conyers 2) Amash/Conyers/Mulvaney/Polis/Massie Amendment – Bars the NSA and other agencies from using Section 215 of the Patriot Act (as codified by Section 501 of FISA) to collect records, including telephone call records, that pertain to persons who may be in communication with terrorist groups but are not already subject to an investigation under Section 215 Postado há 24th July por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 14. Jul 16 Email from former GOP Sen Gordon Humphrey to Snowden: "courageous whistle blower" Emails posted at this link Postado há 16th July por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 15. Jul 14 Email from Marwan Bishara to AJ executives From: Marwan Bishara Sent: 10 July 2013 15:30 To: Salah Negm; Ehab Alshihabi; Al Anstey; Mostefa Souag; Khalid Ali Johar Cc: Director General; Amjad Atallah; Abderrahim Foukara; Paul Eedle; Saeed Al Kaabi; Muhannad H Abu Ghazaleh; Ayman Gaballah; Ahmed Mahfouz Nouh; Amin Saad Abdalla; Nasser Al Khelaifi; Abdulla Thamer Al-Thani; Ehab Sahawneh; Ibrahim Helal; Moussa Nuseibeh; Abraham Ahmad; Imad Musa; Giles Trendle; Julian Ingle; Mesallam Al Rashdi; Paul Rudd; Jonathan Powell; Nasser Al Khelaifi; Yacine Messaoui; Ahmed Mahfouz Nouh; Mohammed Dawood; Yacine Messaoui; Muftah Al-Suwaidan; Diarmuid Jeffreys; Salah Khadr; Heather Allan; Ramzan Alnoimi; Ramsey Zarifeh Subject: To Rectify the Mistakes with AJAM To Rectify the Mistakes with AJAM The next few weeks and months carry with them the daunting task of launching a new and successful Al Jazeera channel in the US. And we must give it our all to make it fulfill the promise of the mother company. I started writing this email with bitterness and disappointment. But after taking part in the last week's days coverage of Egypt and witnessing once again the wonderful way in which everyone seems to pull together and give it their best, am humbled by the efforts and professionalism of all involved. And after long and difficult discussions with our various colleagues including those with formidable responsibility both in Doha, NY and WDC, let me salute each and every one of you with no exception and including the ones I share serious disagreements. Your eagerness to make Aljazeera a success is formidable. The following reflections are meant to contribute to rectifying some of the serious mistakes made over the last several months in order to guarantee a healthier launch and a more solid commitment to a potential American viewership. Most of these mistakes, it seems to me as an observer, culminated because of a lack of communication, lack of consultation and the rush to act out of a personal ambition. I had long decided not to interfere in the working of AJAM, but it has become clear to me over the last few days and weeks that some terrible decisions have been taken that separate AJA & AJE from the new channel on the basis of faulty and ill-thought assumptions. Paradoxically, those who know America best at AJN, or at least have had the longest and most experience there have been the least consulted and kept out of the loop. In the process Doha has been short changed and AJN has been harmed. The new effort in America benefits from and builds on our brand, journalism and credibility, only to distance AJAM whenever convenient to appease those who won't, or don't necessarily want to be, appeased, and in the process insult the intelligence of the American people. Do not to erect a firewall between AJN and AJAM under any circumstance. I've been hearing many ill-conceived assumptions and baseless conclusions about what's good for Aljazeera and what makes it successful in America. And it seems to me a few tend to believe their own feeble pseudo-marketing claims - by definition bullshit . Presentation after presentation of selective clichés and deformed citations from materials some of us have written in the recent past doesn't make for good PR let alone for making the case for Aljazeera in America. Silence is understood as agreement. It's shouldn't. As I said in the last episode of Empire, 'Secrecy corrupts the system'. That's why it's high time to speak out and to discuss the almost secretive ways in which AJ matters and interests have been handled in America. Colleagues in NYC and in Doha are trying to do their best and some are trying harder to carry out and improve on instructions they don't agree with for reasons that I and all of you should understand. But their dedication shouldn't be understood as consensus. Have we signed a deal where AJAM program/content must be substantially different from AJE? Really!!!! What does substantially mean? Who have we made the agreement with and why? I asked several executives and not a single person can give me a categorical answer about the issue, which by itself is mind- boggling!!! (I have issues with AJE's formats, and at times perspectives, but we have so much to hold onto.) Does the fear of contractual obligations with carriers etc. mean it's necessary for some to do whatever they want with Aljazeera, including banning AJE altogether from America and web livestream, just when they themselves try to make the case for a 21st century type television news!!!! How have all these contradictions and ill-conceived decisions come about? Was Doha told of ALL the options possible? Was this wisely negotiated? And how have we moved from the main idea that the strength of AJN lies in the diversity, plurality and even accents of its journalists to a channel where only Americans work, when clearly that's not what American viewership wants, even according to the polls? Let me be clear. I reject flat out that we are polled in the United States as AJE journalists-programs-network in order to find out from Americans whether "we" are "anti-American"!! As I wrote to those who ran the poll in the US (and never gotten a response back). By merely posing the question we've sent the wrong message. "What does "Anti-Americanism" even mean here? How did you define anti- Americanism to those polled! Do you estimate that criticizing the American government or its policies "anti-American" are a fundamental "American" trait and essential element of its democracy and freedom of speech, not to speak of the role of global media. Do you think The Guardian newspaper asks whether its columnists are anti-American as it expands its presence in America? Or does John Stewart ask whether John Oliver is an anti-American Brit considering he's continuously ridiculing American power and at times culture? Since we are Aljazeera from Muslim Qatar, featuring an entire episode critiquing the Catholic Church, why not ask if we are anti Christian! ... Shameful." Such leading questions only hurt us without adding anything to the understanding of our journalism. Yes we need to poll to understand our TV viewership, and the viewership of other networks. But who's suggesting these types of questions? What's the relationship with the former Current TV? And who's dictating what to whom in New York? I am glad we at EMPIRE have passed the test. LOL. My American team appreciates not being seen as "anti-American", but doesn't appreciate the questions. We are also proud of our in-depth and critical journalism. EMPIRE is an AJAM must program according as so many of you have told me over the last few weeks and months. Thinking otherwise is as wrong as it is dangerous. Somehow, perhaps because of a high degree of intimidation and pressure, in addition to a lack of consultation, it rendered us hostage to a faulty and superficial process in a country whose elites and people crave for AJE/AJA kind of journalism. And I did hear of apologies being extended for this rather shameful process, but I think it's a symptom of a greater problem. In the past, I was asked by the DG to write up and email a number of observations and guidelines, but with the exception of a little feedback from colleagues, there was no discussion about the identity and culture of the new channel. But these issues are not the main problem per se; they are indications of a greater failure to assign the right tasks to the right people in the right places and to consult with those who know better. Somehow and for whatever reason, a new culture crept on us of late based on the faulty, even absurd assumption that journalists cannot be trusted with our media, and that business minded consultants are better at making the major decisions. With all respect, and I mean that, that's not true. I watch our producers every day write up budgets, deploy teams, do the work flow etc. and have proven more than capable when they know what they're doing. They also know what's good for the network they helped establish. Something has got to give and soon. Otherwise, if the same closed mindset and superficiality continues to dictate our decisions, we might end up with a far greater crisis in the future. So for the sake of the many of the hidden foot-soldiers that make Aljazeera work every day, for those who are putting the hours and staying away from their families, and for those who dedicated their lives over the years for the cause of our journalism; some even sacrificed their lives in the call of duty, let's safeguard the dignity of an institution and the credibility of its journalism that has become a cause celebre around the world. That's why it's high time for a serious reflection about where we are heading editorially with AJAM and other potential projects. And for that we need to start answering the questions I listed above, including AJAM's identity and journalism and figure out what will happen as and when Salah and co. leave New York back to Doha. How will AJAM cover the next Egyptian crisis- as we did this week at AJE- when all eyes are on us in America to supply the best possible reporting that Americans have come to expect of us since our coverage of the Arab revolutions. Aljzeera enjoys the three ingredients that any network can only dream of: Thanks to Doha, we've received billions of dollars over the last few years; we've been granted basically free and independent editorial decision-making; and we have a dedicated and talented body of journalists. It's also the perfect timing to make a difference when other networks are abdicating their core journalistic mission. It takes hard work to get it wrong... Ehab, you took on a huge responsibility and have a great opportunity to prove yourself. But personal ambition is leading you astray. You should make no more appearances in public forums or photo-ups with political characters, shady or otherwise, that would only hurt us on the long run. And stay clear of our content. Journalism is not your thing; do whatever you know how to do. It's truly insulting to the greater majority of the Americans who I suspect want to watch us and support us that AJAM communicates with them through empty gimmicks and poor marketing theatrics. If we fail America around the launch time, it will be ever more difficult to salvage a tarnished image and compromised credibility. Postado há 14th July por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 16. Jul 13 NSA revelations over the last month All linked here ***** How Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages 12 Jul 2013: Documents show company collaborated closely with NSA and FBI to help agencies intercept data ******** The Snowden video sequel and Brazil fallout 8 Jul 2013: Glenn Greenwald: The worldwide debate over US surveillance which the NSA whistleblower was eager to provoke is clearly emerging ******** The NSA's mass and indiscriminate spying on Brazilians 7 Jul 2013: Glenn Greenwald: As it does in many non-adversarial countries, the surveillance agency is bulk collecting the communications of millions of citizens of Brazil ******** NSA collected US email records in bulk for more than two years under Obama 27 Jun 2013: • Secret program launched by Bush continued 'until 2011' • Fisa court renewed collection order every 90 days • Current NSA programs still mine US internet metadata ******** How the NSA is still harvesting your online data 27 Jun 2013: Files show vast scale of current NSA metadata programs, with one stream alone celebrating 'one trillion records processed' ******** GCHQ taps fibre-optic cables for secret access to world's communications 25 June 2013 British spy agency collects and stores vast quantities of global email messages, Facebook posts, internet histories and calls, and shares them with NSA ******** The top secret rules that allow NSA to use US data without a warrant 20 Jun 2013: Fisa court submissions show broad scope of procedures governing NSA's surveillance of Americans' communication ******** Fisa court oversight: a look inside a secret and empty process 19 Jun 2013: Glenn Greenwald: Obama and other NSA defenders insist there are robust limitations on surveillance but the documents show otherwise ******** Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data 11 Jun 2013: Revealed: The NSA's powerful tool for cataloguing global surveillance data – including figures on US collection • Boundless Informant: mission outlined in four slides ******** Obama orders US to draw up overseas target list for cyber-attacks 7 Jun 2013: Exclusive: Top-secret directive steps up offensive cyber capabilities to 'advance US objectives around the world' ******** NSA Prism program taps in to user data of Apple, Google and others 7 Jun 2013: • Top-secret Prism program claims direct access to servers of firms including Google, Apple and Facebook ******** NSA collecting phone records of millions of Verizon customers daily 6 Jun 2013: Exclusive: Top secret court order requiring Verizon to hand over all call data shows scale of domestic surveillance under Obama administration Postado há 13th July por Glenn Greenwald 3 Visualizar comentários 17. Jul 9 Email to Walter Pincus Dear Mr. Pincus: That you decided to write an entire column grounded solely in baseless innuendo is between you and your editors. But your assertion of several factually false claims about me, Laura Poitras, and others is not: (1) "On April 10, 2012, Greenwald wrote for the WikiLeaks Press's blog about Poitras and WikiLeaks being targeted by U.S. government officials." I have no idea what you're talking about here, and neither do you. I never wrote anything "for the WikiLeaks Press's blog". How you decided to pull that fact out of thin air is a genuine mystery. The April 10, 2012, article of mine you seem to be referencing - about the serial border harassment of the filmmaker Laura Poitras - was written for Salon, where I was a Contributing Writer and daily columnist. Neither it, nor anything else I've ever written, was written "for the WikiLeaks Press's blog". (2) "In that same interview, Assange previewed the first Greenwald Guardian story based on Snowden documents that landed a week later." This claim is not just obviously false, but deeply embarrassing for someone who claims even a passing familiarity with surveillance issues. The sentence you quoted from Assange's May 29 interview about the collection of phone records was preceded by this: "The National Security Agency — and this has come out in one court case after another — was involved in a project called Stellar Wind to collect all the calling records of the United States." Stellar Wind, as you rather amazingly do not know, is the code name for the 2001-2007 Bush NSA spying program. As part of that program, the NSA (as you also rather amazingly did not know) engaged in the bulk collection of Americans' phone records. Back in April, 2012, NSA whistleblower William Binney went on Democracy Now and detailed how, under Stellar Wind, the NSA argued that the Patriot Act "gives them license to take all the commercially held data about us" and has thus "assembled on the order of 20 trillion transactions about U.S. citizens with other U.S. citizens." When "Assange described how NSA had been collecting 'all the calling records of the United States, every record of everyone calling everyone over years'", he was not "preview[ing] the first Greenwald Guardian story based on Snowden documents that landed a week later" (a story that revealed for the first time that a radical interpretation of section 215 of the Patriot Act was being used by the FISA court and the Obama DOJ to justify the bulk collection of Americans' communications record and that this indiscriminate domestic surveillance program was active under the Obama administration). Instead, Assange was describing - explicitly - a Bush program from 8 years earlier, one that was widely reported at the time and thus known to the entire world (except, apparently, to you and your editors). (3) "He [Snowden] worked less than three months at Booz Allen, but by the time he reached Hong Kong in mid-May, Snowden had four computers with NSA documents." Edward Snowden has worked more or less continuously at the NSA for various contractors since 2009 - not since March, 2013. See this July 4, 2013, New York Times article on Snowden's four-year history at the NSA as a sophisticated cyber-operative: "In 2010, while working for a National Security Agency contractor, Edward J. Snowden learned to be a hacker. . . .By 2010, he had switched agencies and moved to Japan to work for Dell as an N.S.A. contractor, and he led a project to modernize the backup computer infrastructure, he said on the résumé. That year also appears to have been pivotal in his shift toward more sophisticated cybersecurity." By the time he contacted us, he had already been working at the NSA with extensive top secret authorization for almost four years. To conceal this vital fact from your readers - in order to leave them with the false impression that he only began working at the NSA after he spoke with me, Laura Poitras and your Washington Post colleague Bart Gellman - is deceitful and reckless. (4) "Was he encouraged or directed by WikiLeaks personnel or others to take the job as part of a broader plan to expose NSA operations to selected journalists?" Although you also conceal this from your readers, both Poitras and I have repeatedly, publicly and in great detail addressed all of these questions. I did so in a newspaper called "the Washington Post" ("It was only in May — and not before — that Snowden told [Greenwald] who he was, who he worked for (at that point he identified himself as affiliated with the NSA) and what sort of documents he had to share, Greenwald says. It wasn't until June — when Greenwald visited Snowden in Hong Kong — that Snowden told him he worked specifically for Booz Allen"), as well as in the New York Times. Poitras did so in an interview with Salon: "I didn't know where he worked, I didn't know he was NSA, I didn't know how — nothing. There was no like, Oh do you think you …, no nudging. It's like the crazy correlations that the NSA does. There's no connection here. We were contacted, we didn't know what he was up to, and at some point he came forward with documents". You're free to disbelieve those answers in pursuit of your frenzied conspiracy theorizing. But you should not feel free to pretend those answers haven't been provided and thus hide them from your readers. Apparently, some establishment journalists have decided that the way to save a discredited and dying industry is to fill articles and columns speculating about the news-gathering process on a significant story in which they had no involvement, and thus traffic in innuendo-laden "questions" designed to imply elaborate and nefarious conspiracy theories. So be it: I don't think that will work - I think what readers want are fact-based revelations about those in power - but feel free to try. But making up facts along the way, as you've done, should still be deemed unacceptable. At the very least, they merit a prominent correction. All of this is independent of the fact that the conspiracy theory you've concocted is just laughable on its own terms. The very notion that Julian Assange would have masterminded this leak from the start, but then chose to remain demurely and shyly in the background so that others would receive credit for it, would prompt choking fits of laughter among anyone who knows him. Your suggestion that Assange would refrain from having WikiLeaks publish these documents, and instead direct these news-breaking leaks to The Guardian of all places - with which he has a bitter, highly publicized and long-standing feud - is even more hilarious. Our NSA stories have been published and discussed in countless countries around the world, where they have sparked shock, indignation and demands for investigation. So revealingly, it is only American journalists - and them alone - who have decided to focus their intrepid journalistic attention not on the extremist and legally dubious surveillance behavior of the US government and serial deceit by its top officials, but on those who revealed all of that to the world. This is an important news story and journalists should be free to ask all sorts of questions about who was involved and how. That's why we've been so forthcoming - unusually so - about addressing all these questions. Read your Washington Post colleague Erik Wemple as he explains that to you: "In response to various questions going back to the days just after his first NSA stories, Greenwald has delivered a remarkable amount of disclosures about how he got the story, how he executed it and how he plans to continue pursuing it." But when those questions are posed by fabricating events that never happened and ignoring the answers that have already been provided, it strongly suggests that something other than truth-seeking is the objective. Glenn Greenwald Postado há 9th July por Glenn Greenwald 4 Visualizar comentários 18. Jun 25 Bernie Sanders on VRA WASHINGTON, June 25 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the following statement after the Supreme Court ruled today that Congress had not provided adequate justification for continued federal oversight under the Voting Rights Act of 1965: "The Supreme Court has turned back the clock on equality in America by striking down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. The landmark civil rights law that Congress passed almost five decades ago, and reauthorized with overwhelming bipartisan support only seven years ago, has been an important tool to protect voters in places with a history of discrimination. The law is as necessary today as it was in the era of Jim Crow laws. We must act immediately to rewrite this vital law." Postado há 25th June por Glenn Greenwald 1 Visualizar comentários 19. Jun 8 Gail Collins on Clapper From Gail Collins' NYT column today: Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon did everything but tap dance theinformation in Morse code. "Does the N.S.A. collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" he asked James Clapper, thedirector of national intelligence, at a public hearing. "No sir," said [Director of National Intelligence James] Clapper. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/opinion/collins-intelligence-for-dummies.html?smid=tw- share&_r=0 Postado há 8th June por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 20. Jun 7 NYT/Sullivan email exchange ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Andrew Sullivan <> Date: Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 3:31 PM Subject: Re: glenn greenwald To: "Kaufman, Leslie" < I count Glenn as an honest blogger whose passions in real time can sometimes lead to misreadings of others. But we're all vulnerable to that in the blogosphere, and in our various spats, I've always enjoyed the give-and-take, rather than resenting some of the occasionally unfair barbs. They come with the territory. But once you get into a debate with him, it can be hard to get the last word. A friend described debating him as like engaging with a rhetorical trampoline. But I actually enjoy rhetorical trampolining, as long as no one gets hurt too much. I do not take anything he writes about my work personally. His passion is a great antidote to the insidery access-driven village of Washington journalism, but at times, I think he has little grip on what it actually means to govern a country or run a war. He's a purist in a way that, in my view, constrains the sophistication of his work. Yes, we're friends. We've hung out a bit, and are bonded by a couple of things. He relies on readers for much of his income (and I rely on readers for all of mine) - and has made online debate much sharper in many ways. I've benefited from his criticism, even as I remain to his "right." And he is forced to live abroad with his partner David because the US refuses to acknowledge the validity and dignity of bi-national gay couples. I was in that exact position for a long time with my American husband - and our shared experience matters a lot to me. Our husbands have also bonded over the same issue. And I genuinely like him as a human being. you can use any all or none of that cheers andrew On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Kaufman, Leslie <> wrote: Needed in the next two hours, daily deadlines and whatnot. So if you can: 1) He obviously had strong opinions, but how is he as a journalist? Reliable? Honest? Quotes you accurately? Accurately describes your positions? Or is more advocate than journalist? 2) He says you are a friend, is this so? I get the sense that he is something of a loner and has the kind of uncompromising opinions that makes it hard to keep friends, but could be wrong. Would love your thoughts on both or either of these questions. Leslie From: Andrew Sullivan] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 3:15 PM To: Kaufman, Leslie Cc: Jessie Roberts Subject: Re: glenn greenwald i'm temporarily without an assistant and extremely over-worked. my current temporary help, jessie, is cced here and she can set up a time for a phoner of, say, 20 minutes, some time after 3 pm on monday or tuesday next week. hope that's ok. if needed sooner will have to reply by email cheers a On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Kaufman, Leslie < wrote: What's the best way to reach you? From: Andrew Sullivan [] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 3:00 PM To: Kaufman, Leslie Subject: Re: glenn greenwald sure. a On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Kaufman, Leslie < wrote: Dear Andrew I am doing reporting for a profile of Mr. Greenwald in light of the Verizon story today. Since he has alternatively described you as a friend and criticized your writing, I wondered if you'd be willing to chat about him Thanks. Postado há 7th June por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 21. Jun 5 Sen. Mark Udall on the Verizon/phone records story "While I cannot corroborate the details of this particular report, this sort of widescale surveillance should concern all of us and is the kind of government overreach I've said Americans would find shocking. As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, it's why I will keep fighting for transparency and appropriate checks on the surveillance of Americans." Postado há 5th June por Glenn Greenwald 2 Visualizar comentários 22. Jun 5 ACLU on Verizon/phone records story Massive NSA Phone Data-Mining Operation Revealed ACLU Calls for End to Program, Disclosure of Program's Scope, Congressional Investigation FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 5, 2013 NEW YORK – Using the Patriot Act, the U.S. government has been secretly tracking the calls of every Verizon Business Network Services customer – whom they talked to, from where, and for how long – for the past 41 days, according to a report published by The Guardian. "From a civil liberties perspective, the program could hardly be any more alarming. It's a program in which some untold number of innocent people have been put under the constant surveillance of government agents," said Jameel Jaffer, American Civil Liberties Union deputy legal director. "It is beyond Orwellian, and it provides further evidence of the extent to which basic democratic rights are being surrendered in secret to the demands of unaccountable intelligence agencies." The program was put in place under the Patriot Act's Section 215, a controversial provision that authorizes the government to seek secret court orders for the production of "any tangible thing" relevant to a foreign-intelligence or terrorism investigation. Recipients of Section 215 orders, such as telecommunications companies, are prohibited from disclosing that they gave the government their customers' records. "Now that this unconstitutional surveillance effort has been revealed, the government should end it and disclose its full scope, and Congress should initiate a full investigation," said Michelle Richardson, legislative counsel with the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "This disclosure also highlights the growing gap between the public's and the government's understandings of the many sweeping surveillance authorities enacted by Congress. Since 9/11, the government has increasingly classified and concealed not just facts, but the law itself. Such extreme secrecy is inconsistent with our democratic values of open government and accountability." The first information about the government's use of Section 215 was made public in response to Freedom of Information Act litigation filed by the ACLU 10 years ago. More recently, members of Congress have warned that the government has secretly interpreted Section 215 in a way that would shock Americans. In 2012, Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.) wrote, "When the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the Patriot Act, they are going to be stunned and they are going to be angry." In May 2011, shortly before Section 215 was scheduled to expire, the ACLU filed a new FOIA request in an effort to learn more about the "secret interpretation" to which Sens. Wyden and Udall had referred. Congress reauthorized Section 215 without amendment until 2015, and for the last two years, the government has refused to describe its secret interpretation. Whether or not the program described by The Guardian reflects that "secret interpretation," today's disclosure confirms that the government has interpreted Section 215 extraordinarily broadly. This disclosure is likely to have significant implications for the ACLU's pending FOIA lawsuit. The Department of Justice is scheduled to file a brief in that case on June 13; the ACLU's response is due on June 28, and oral argument is scheduled for July 11 in the Southern District of New York. More information on the ACLU's FOIA lawsuit requesting information on Patriot Act Section 215 is at: aclu.org/national-security/section-215-patriot-act-foia Postado há 5th June por Glenn Greenwald 1 Visualizar comentários 23. Jun 5 ACLU on Verizon/phone records story Following is the statement of ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer to the Guardian's report on the NSA's bulk collection of telephone records: "From a civil liberties perspective, the program could hardly be any more alarming. Its a program in which every single person in the country has been put under the constant surveillance of government agents. It's the equivalent of the FBI stationing an agent outside every home in the country to track who goes in and who comes out. It is beyond Orwellian, and it provides further evidence, if any were needed, of the extent to which basic democratic rights are being surrendered in secret to the demands of unaccountable intelligence agencies. "That this program was apparently implemented under Section 215 of the Patriot Act makes it even more disturbing. When President Bush signed the Patriot Act into law, the ACLU and many other groups denounced Section 215, contending that it would permit unjustified invasions of individual privacy. We brought lawsuits to try to invalidate the provision and shed light on the governments use of it. "But not one legislator and no civil liberties critic envisioned that the provision would be exploited to justify a dragnet surveillance program on this scale. If the government thinks Section 215 permits this surveillance program, it hasn't just interpreted the law; its rewritten it altogether." Postado há 5th June por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 24. May 25 Email to Andrew Sullivan - Subject: "Keep Calm and Carry On: Your Glenn Greenwald Post" For God's sake, calm down! And then do the right thing and apologize to Glenn Greenwald for your over-the-top and silly criticism of his column asking the obvious and appropriate questions of whether the London attacks meet the legal definition of "terrorism" and/or what consistent definition of "terrorism" exists in our age of the "War on Terror." Couple of points: 1. Before this barbaric London attack, you had posted on the Dish an explanation that "terrorism" legally requires (under U.S. law) that attacks be directed at civilians, and not (as in the London attack) soldiers or "combatants." http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/05/16/terror-and-terrorism-ctd/ Imagine if someone then responded to you pointing out that fact (like Greenwald did) with the type of sanctimonious outburst that you showed here. Would you have even taken it seriously? 2. The emotional intensity with which you demand that the London attack be described as "terrorism" (as opposed to "horrific act of violence," "killing," "hack to death," "barbaric and horrendous act," etc., as Greenwald writes) only confirms Greenwald's point that it is important to define what "terrorism" means, particularly because certain folks have an emotional, political and/or legal reason for insisting on its usage. What free thinker would want to shout down that discussion? Respectfully, that is "very hard to understand, let alone forgive." 3. Your core outrage that Greenwald improperly conflated U.S. actions with the type of London barbaric attack is, frankly, a muddled mess and wrong. Greenwald did not remotely compare US policy to two nut jobs hacking a guy to death in the street. Greenwald's discussion (again in the context of trying to define "terrorism") acknowledged the historical and present amount of massive civilian suffering, death, and maiming in this area of the world by the U.S. -- whether directly or through US supported regimes -- and then, rightly, noted that none of this has been described as "terrorism." Ironically, by your emotional definition of "terrorism," don't you think that many Muslim civilians in this area of the world could justifiably consider the U.S. to be terrorists? Personally, I think your post suffered from a weird Republican (or, ex-Republican) notion that it is somehow "tough" and "morally clear" to use the word "terrorism" -- an almost semantic obsession that is freight with legal consequences. In fairness, I think Greenwald was writing about something more nuanced, and was less concerned about checking the "tough on terror" box. I honestly think you missed that. Anyway, your fundamental misreading of Greenwald's column is succinctly stated in your sentence: "How can that [U.S. history in the Mideast] legitimize a British citizen's brutal beheading of a fellow British citizen on the streets of London?" Greenwald never remotely said that. And you owe him an apology. Its the decent thing to do. Postado há 25th May por Glenn Greenwald 1 Visualizar comentários 25. May 24 Deleted tweet: https://twitter.com/thescottfinley/status/338046937498542080 Postado há 24th May por Glenn Greenwald 3 Visualizar comentários 26. May 22 Jeremy Scahill statement re Holder admission Jeremy Scahill, whose upcoming groundbreaking film, Dirty Wars, deals extensively with US drone killings in Yemen, reacts to the admission by the US government today that it drone-killed 4 Americans in Yemen, including the 16-year-old American Abdulrahman Awlaki: ***** "Attorney General Eric Holder's letter raises more questions than it answers. While the Obama administration now admits it intentionally killed Anwar Awlaki despite never having charged him with a crime, it continues to insist that the evidence against him is too sensitive to be made public. The assassination of Anwar Awlaki was a watershed moment and crossed a dangerous line. The public has a right to know the full, legal basis for killing an American citizen without providing him any access to due process. How would Awlaki have surrendered when he was not even charged with a crime? How do you surrender to a drone? "In his letter, Holder says that the United States did 'not specifically target' 16-year-old US citizen Abdulrahman Awlaki. What does that phrase mean? Why then was he killed? The White House should explain his killing to the American people and to the boy's family. Despite its claims to be the most transparent administration in history, the Obama White House continues to keep secret from the American people vital information about its claimed lethal authorities. How does an American get on the kill list? How does one get off the kill list, especially when there are no criminal charges filed against you? "Perhaps most disturbing about the Attorney General's letter is that it leaves totally unexplained why the United States has killed so many innocent non-American citizens in its strikes in Pakistan and Yemen. Yet, from my investigation on the ground in a variety of countries, I've become convinced that we are making more new enemies than we are killing terrorists. We must confront the realities of the full impact of our 'targeted' killing program, particularly when innocent civilians are killed, so that we can have a real debate about whether our counterterrorism strategies are enhancing or degrading our national security." ***** See the trailer for Dirty Wars here: Postado há 22nd May por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 27. May 21 Editor's Note EDITOR'S BLOG Editor's Blog: In the Massad case, we should have done better On the (temporary) removal of Joseph Massad's article, "Last of the Semites", from these pages. Last Modified: 21 May 2013 18:18 Imad Musa Head of Online, Al Jazeera English RSS Recently there has been much give and take about a column published on our website, and the decision to remove that column. During the past few days, people have speculated that Al Jazeera succumbed to various pressures, and censored its own pages. Al Jazeera has always demanded transparency from the centres of power around the world, and we demand it from ourselves as well. The article, re-posted below, is "The Last of the Semites". It was written by Professor Joseph Massad, who teaches at Columbia University in New York. His article featured in the Opinion section of our website. After publication, many questions arose about the article's content. In addition, the article was deemed to be similar in argument to Massad's previous column, "Zionism, anti- Semitism and colonialism", published on these pages in December. We should have handled this better, and we have learned lessons that will enable us to maintain the highest standards of journalistic integrity. Our guiding principle has always been "the opinion and other opinion". Our pages have always been - and will always be - open to the most thought-provoking thinkers and writers from across the globe. Al Jazeera does not submit to pressure regardless of circumstance, and our history is full of examples where we were faced with extremely tough choices but never gave in. This is the secret to our success. As always, we welcome your thoughts and comments. Postado há 21st May por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 28. May 17 Who bears the fighting burden? This chart, from the December 2004 issue of the Population Bulletin (.pdf), reflects the percentage of the American population which, throughout the country's history, served in its armed forces: There are currently 41.9 million Americans (.pdf) who are between the ages of 18-29 — the "9/11 Generation." And according to the CIA, there are roughly 108 million Americans "fit for military service" — 54 million males and 54 million females who, as the CIA defines it, are able-bodied and between the ages of 18- 49. But the total number (.pdf) on active duty in American's armed services in 2007 only totaled roughly 1.4 million. Thus, a meager 1% of the total number of Americans fit for military service — and less than 1/3 of 1% of the total number of Americans — actually serve in the armed forces. Moreover, roughly 60% (.pdf) of those in the armed forces are in the 18-29 age group, which means that 800,000 out of the 41 million Americans in this 9/11 Generation —i.e., 2% — have "answered the call" by volunteering to fight in the Epic War of Civilization against the Existential Islamofascism Threat. Thus, 98% of the "9/11 Generation" in America refuses to serve. Postado há 17th May por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 29. May 13 ACLU on DOJ/AP phone story ACLU Comment on Justice Department Subpoenas of AP Phone Records FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 13, 2013 NEW YORK – The Department of Justice secretly obtained two months' worth of phone records of Associated Press reporters and editors, according to an AP story. The following statement can be attributed to Laura W. Murphy, director of the American Civil Liberties Union Washington Legislative Office: "The media's purpose is to keep the public informed and it should be free to do so without the threat of unwarranted surveillance. The Attorney General must explain the Justice Department's actions to the public so that we can make sure this kind of press intimidation does not happen again." The following statement can be attributed to Ben Wizner, director of the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project: "Obtaining a broad range of telephone records in order to ferret out a government leaker is an unacceptable abuse of power. Freedom of the press is a pillar of our democracy, and that freedom often depends on confidential communications between reporters and their sources." Postado há 13th May por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 30. May 6 NYT on Syria-Israel attack 1. 0 Add a comment 2. May 6 NYT on Syria-Israel attack Postado há 6th May por Glenn Greenwald 2 Visualizar comentários 3. May 1 Maureen Dowd on Obama/Gitmo May 1, 2013: "Asked about the hunger strike, the former constitutional law professor in the White House expressed the proper moral outrage at holding so many men 'in no-man's land in perpetuity.' But it sounded as though he didn't fully understand his own policy. "Closing Guantánamo doesn't address the fundamental problem of rights. Obama's solution, blocked by Congress, is to move the hornet's nest to a Supermax prison in Illinois — dubbed 'Gitmo North' — and keep holding men as POWs in a war that has no end. They're not hunger-striking for a change in scenery. "It's true that Congress put restrictions on transfers of individuals to other countries with bad security situations. But, since 2012, Congress has granted authority to the secretary of defense to waive those restrictions on a case-by-case basis. The administration hasn't made use of that power once. So it's a little stale to blame Congress at this point." See also: Brookings' Benjamin Wittes: here and here, and the ACLU here. Postado há 1st May por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 4. Apr 30 ACLU on Obama/GITMO ACLU Statement on President's Guantánamo Comments FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 30, 2013 NEW YORK – At a press briefing today, President Obama restated his belief that the prison at Guantánamo should be closed. Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, responded to the president's comments by detailing immediate actions the president could take. "We welcome the president's continuing commitment to closing Guantánamo and putting an end to the indefinite detention regime there," Romero said. "There are two things the president should do. One is to appoint a senior point person so that the administration's Guantánamo closure policy is directed by the White House and not by Pentagon bureaucrats. The president can also order the secretary of defense to start certifying for transfer detainees who have been cleared, which is more than half the Guantánamo population." "There's more to be done, but these are the two essential first steps the president can take now to break the Guantánamo logjam," Romero said. "We couldn't agree more with President Obama's statement that the 'idea that we would still maintain forever a group of individuals who have not been tried – that is contrary to who we are, it is contrary to our interests, and it needs to stop.'" Postado há 30th April por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 5. Apr 27 Bill Keller on Manning and the Arab Spring Keller on NPR: On whether The New York Times helped spark the revolts in Tunisia "We talk about this a lot around the office: To what extent did we set this in motion? The simple nuts-and-bolts answer to that is, in the case of the WikiLeaks cables in Tunisia, WikiLeaks certainly did make a difference. I'm pretty sure that the New York Times didn't because we didn't publish any of those cables until after the uprising was already under way. We've only reviewed a fraction of those 250,000 cables. There are a number of things that we're looking at now that suddenly seem interesting because the region is in turmoil. But Tunisia was not on our top 10 list of subjects to search when we got the first batch of cables." "I think the Tunisia one was at least fueled by [the release of Wikileaks documents.] The accepted version of how things happened in Tunisia was that a fruit seller who was mistreated by the government set himself on fire and this began an uprising by the impoverished fruitsellers in the marketplace and so on. We've tracked down the family of the guy who immolated himself. That all seems to be true, but it also seems to be true that the circulation of the Wikileaks documents that talked about how the Ben-Ali regime lived high off the hog ... clearly did circulate widely and if it didn't start what happened in Tunisia, it certainly fueled it." In the NYT: "If a project like this makes readers pay attention, think harder, understand more clearly what is being done in their name, then we have performed a public service. And that does not count the impact of these revelations on the people most touched by them. WikiLeaks cables in which American diplomats recount the extravagant corruption of Tunisia's rulers helped fuel a popular uprising that has overthrown the government." Postado há 27th April por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 6. Apr 20 CCR Condemns Miranda Exception in Boston Marathon Suspect Case CCR Condemns Miranda Exception in Boston Marathon Suspect Case April 20, 2013, New York – Today, Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) Executive Director Vincent Warren released the following statement in response to the news that the government had decided not to read the suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings his Miranda rights before interrogating him for what is now the longest exception to date Our thoughts go out to the friends and families of victims of these horrific bombings. While it is difficult to turn to points of law in times of tragedy, those are, in fact, the times we most need to cling to the values, laws and rights that make us who we are as a nation. The Miranda warnings were put in place because police officers were beating and torturing "confessions" out of people who hadn't even been formally accused of a crime. We cannot afford to repeat our mistakes. If officials require suspects to incriminate themselves, they are making fair trials and due process merely option and not a requirement. To venture down that road again will make law enforcement accountable to no one. Like Obama's expanded killing program and his perpetuation of indefinite detention without trial at Guantanamo, this is yet another erosion of the Constitution to lay directly at the President's feet. Obama's Justice Department unilaterally expanded the "public safety exception" to Miranda in 2010 beyond anything the Supreme Court ever authorized. Each time the administration use this exception, it stretches wider and longer. However horrific the crime, continuing to erode constitutional rights invites continued abuse by law enforcement, and walks us down a dangerous path that becomes nearly impossible to reverse. Postado há 20th April por Glenn Greenwald 1 Visualizar comentários 7. Apr 20 Toure re-tweet Postado há 20th April por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 8. Apr 20 Drudge headline Postado há 20th April por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 9. Apr 8 Drone lobby invite From: Mario D. Mairena [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.com] Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 9:41 AM To: Subject: 9 April Event in Cannon Caucus Room Dear Congressional Staffer: The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) is the largest trade association representing the unmanned systems — which includes air, ground and maritime systems — and robotics community. We are holding AUVSI Hill Day in conjunction with National Robotics Week on 9 April and we invite you to attend the celebration of the 4th annual National Robotics Week in the Cannon Caucus Room on Tuesday, 9 April from 5:00 p.m. until 7:30 p.m. (hors d'oeuvres and refreshments). AUVSI members will display and demonstrate interactive robotic technologies for attendees. AUVSI coordinates this annual event with the House Robotic Caucus co-chairs Reps. Phil Gingrey and Mike Doyle. This year's event is sponsored by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, UAV Solutions and Carnegie Mellon University. The reception in the Cannon Caucus Room is a widely attended event and is open to all Members and staff. We look forward to you joining AUVSI and the unmanned systems and robotics industry. Postado há 8th April por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 10. Apr 6 Murtaza Hussain replies to Harris and his defenders Last week, Murtaza Hussain wrote a column in Al Jazeera which, among other things, examined some of the uglier views of Sam Harris. Harris attacked that column in various ways, including by angrily emailling me over my having tweeted it and claiming it distorted his views, and he then touted on his Twitter and Facebook pages this post from one of his readers, which also accused Hussain of distorting Harris' statements. Below is Hussain's eloquent and compelling reply to that attack on him, which he posted on Harris' Facebook page last night. What I find particularly compelling about it is how it exposes the core disingenuous conceit of Harris and many of his followers: that their relentless quest to prove that Islam is the world's gravest threat is nothing more than an apolitical, scienitific, and rational assessment of facts, even though it occurs exactly at the same time as (and within the context of) a decade-long war by the US, Israel and their allies against predominantly Muslim countries that entails all sorts of violence, aggression, and oppressive measures against Muslims - policies which Harris often expressly defends. What Harris is so obviously peddling is nothing more than neoconservatism disguised as atheism - in order to make that political ideology more palatable to people who would otherwise reject it. As he and his supporters tell the story, they just so happened to pop up to devote themselves to scorning Isalm as the world's greatest evil at exactly the same time that their very own nations and governments have been targeting Muslims with all sorts of systematic state violence, aggression and suppression. But it's not their intent to glorify all of that imperial state aggression with intellectual justification: oh, no, that's just a big coincidence. They are not "tribalists" like Harris says those Muslims are: when they tout the supreme evil of their governments' chosen enemies, they are just being rational and objective and floating above it all. Theodore Sayeed, in his brilliant comprehensive look at Harris' public advocacy, made the key point to all of this: "Any review of Sam Harris and his work is a review essentially of politics. . . . For a man who likes to badger Muslims about their 'reflexive solidarity' with Arab suffering, Harris seems keen to display his own tribal affections for the Jewish state. The virtue of Israel and the wickedness of her enemies are recurring themes in his work." The same is true of Harris' other tribal affections: the US and the west generally, Hence the obssessive focus on suicide bombs and reactions to cartoons by a tiny portion of the world's Muslims, while ignoring (when not explicitly justifying) their own governments' massive invasions, killings, occupations, torture and lawless detention regimes, and, in the case of Israel, a 45-year-old brutal occupation fuelled in substantial part by religious conviction over God's intent. Us Good, Them Bad. Hussain: This was a piece which could only be written by someone utterly ignorant of the political and social contexts in which Harris makes his arguments. Harris - for all his apparent moral and character failures - happens to be stridently political and is not ignorant of the context within which he is speaking. His endorsement of this piece seems to reflect a disingenuous claim on his part that it constitutes a solid defense of him - nothing could be further from the truth. When I first read the claim here that Harris' defense of torture extends only to hypothetical non-real world individuals, I almost fell off my chair laughing. Harris wrote "In Defense of Torture" in 2005, directly in the middle of the Iraq War and the public debates over torture spawned by the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib, Bagram Air Force Base, Guantanamo Bay, and innumerable CIA "black sites" all over the world. The claim that he is offering a neutral commentary on the subject in general - and not giving his green-light as a scientific and philosophic authority to the policies being fiercely debated at that very moment - is utterly risible. It has not been nameless, shapeless, colourless, individuals who have been the subjects of institutionalized torture over the past decade and as a political animal Harris knows this full well. Much the same can be said of his delightful commentary on the utility of nuclear holocaust. He's not making this argument in a vacuum, there is a fierce public debate about a particular Islamic country (Iran, if you're somehow unaware) potentially attaining nuclear weapons. There is literally no other country being debated at present to whom his "hypothetical" scenario may pertain than the Islamic Republic of Iran. Despite his apparently deep ignorance of this issue, given what actual experts (including the leading figures in the *Israeli* defense establishment) have to say about the utility of deterrence, he still feels compelled to chime in with his casually genocidal opinion. Harris magnanimously offers that under racial profiling he would fit the description of the type of person being profiled. How anyone could possibly find this absurdly disingenuous claim to be credible is beyond me. I will pause here for one moment because I think some degree of common sense should apply in profiling and would like to separate the concept from the man. In response to this article Harris printed an email he received from a Muslim lawyer, the content of which I believe made good sense. Muslims should do their part to be patient with certain fears and concerns (even if exaggerated) and not take offense if they are respectfully scrutinized for a greater period than average. However what I found disturbing about Harris' own flagrantly irresponsible commentary on the issue was that he feels we should profile anyone who "looks Muslim". Given that Muslims come from every ethnic background on Earth - though, as I noted, they are overwhelmingly black and brown - how exactly would we discern who "looks Muslim"? Long flowing robes? Large beards? Grandiose turbans? There is simply no natural way to do so. It is a flippant yet highly dangerous statement made by Harris; the only effective solution to which would be having Muslims carry special ID cards or wearing crescent-moon armbands for easy identification. Robby's piece proceeds from the false premise that I'm trying to psychoanalyze Harris, and as such leads him to make erroneous conclusions. The fact that it gets Harris' back up when he sees people who "look Muslim", and that people who "look Muslim" are a potential threat in his eyes is a statement which should stand on its own - I really couldn't care less what he feels in his heart of hearts. What I and everyone else should have a problem with is that the practical implications of this view are utterly bigoted. Furthermore, saying we are at "War with Islam" in the context of the past decade of bombings, invasions, occupations and wanton mass-murder (which he incredibly believes are actually massive favors to the subject peoples), is, contrary to Robby's endearingly quaint contention, indeed a call for open- ended war. The United States is conducting a battle without defined limits under the guise of an amorphous "War on Terror" - a war which has no defined victory conditions and in variously brutal forms continues to be carried on with no end sight. In his great wisdom, [Harris] simply wants us to change the name of the open-ended war which already exists and, by expanding it from "Terror" to "Islam", make every one of the 1.5 billion people who identify with the latter a potential enemy. Much as Harris would like, Muslims - even secular- minded ones - are never going to stop identifying with the 1400 year old constructed civilization which, despite its present hardships, has for centuries been the world standard in art, science, governance, as well as racial and religious tolerance. While in Muslims' present downtrodden state some have tried to wipe their contributions out of history and paint them as timelessly-backwards savages (a frequently- employed colonialist depiction of their subjects), Muslims have a collective memory of their past and will not be parted from it, nor from their identification with Islamic civilization. In response to another of Robby's points, the United States is not propping up a "benign dictatorship" in North Korea but is certainly doing so in Jordan, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia (none of these in my opinion really pass the "benign" test, but I digress) and many other Muslim countries. The bigoted and ignorant trope that Muslims are inherently incapable of responsible self-governance has been trotted out again and again and now finds Harris as another defender. Again, he knows what he is doing as he is stridently political (as Glenn so incisively pointed out, he pushes "atheism sprinkled on a neoconservative worldview") and to see him claim ignorance of the geopolitical reality he speaks to is an absurd game on his part. I don't begrudge Robby for making what he felt was a good faith argument and defending someone he obviously admires. In fact he admires him so much that it has led him to effectively exonerate Harris in every circumstance from the real-world consequences of his own words. If Harris were not stridently political I would give him the benefit of the doubt - maybe his words are simply being misappropriated and he is speaking in terms of pure theory. However this is not the case, and as I've shown in my piece just because you are a "scientist" doesn't mean you are immune from the pull of ideology. Harris is not only political, he subscribes to a particularly virulent neoconservative worldview which - as I pointed out - dovetails extraordinarily well with his supposedly impartial philosophical arguments. I'm a traditional liberal Muslim who despises extremism of all types. The simple fact is that Islamic extremism is almost exclusively a threat to people like me - not rich, white, Westerners like Sam Harris. I was born in a Muslim country and have traveled extensively in the Muslim world - whereas Sam, the great empiricist, has never stepped foot in a Muslim country in his life. How he can nonetheless make such boldly idiotic statements regarding Muslims and the Muslim world is beyond me. If he, as he so magnanimously stated, wants to help "Muslim women and girls" he can start by opposing the wars he has so enthusiastically promoted waging in Muslim lands. To put it bluntly, women ALWAYS suffer the most in war. When they are victims of sexual violence, when their family members are killed, when they lose economic security, when they fall prey to human trafficking and when their bodies are torn apart by bullets, bombs, and chemical weapons. The fact a warmonger such as Harris perceives himself as a savior of Muslim women would be hilarious if it weren't so tragic. If you like Harris for his neuroscience work or his work arguing against the existence of God; good for you. Even though I disagree on the latter point I think it is a subject worthy of continuous debate and - to burn this strawman for the millionth time - it is never bigoted to criticize ideas, including Islam. Although Harris is unfortunately a deeply dishonest intellectual who has made a career of "quote-mining" the Quran (something he, without apparent irony, accused me of doing to him), this is not what is perfidious about him. The fact is that he is a demagogue and hatemonger, who takes his most courageous moral stands against the weakest and most oppressed people he can find. He uses his intellectual authority as a scientist to act as an advocate for exceptions for the most despicable policies ever devised by humanity - seemingly arguing that whatever humans have previously decided is an absolute wrong in fact does not need to be. And again, he argues in the present tense, in the context of *these* ongoing wars fought against Muslims. Simply put, it is not me who has decontextualized Harris' words but rather those who have ignobly chosen to defend him. Postado há 6th April por Glenn Greenwald 20 Visualizar comentários 11. Apr 5 Twitter exchange with Sam Harris and friends _____ _____ _____ ____ ___ ___ ____ ___ ____ ___ __ ____ __ See also: my column on Harris' views Noam Chomsky on Harris and similar "New Atheists": here and here Former NYT Middle East Bureau Chief Chris Hedges on Harris and similar "New Atheists": here Theodore Sayeed on Harris: here Laila Lalami in the Nation on Harris: here Atheist Chris Steadman on Islamophobia in Harris and the writings of a few others: here Postado há 5th April por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 12. Apr 5 e Postado há 5th April por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 13. Apr 2 Email with Sam Harris Earlier today, I posted a tweet linking to a column in Al Jazeera by Murtaza Hussain that accuses "New Atheists" such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens of trafficking in anti-Islamic bigotry. A column making similar claims was published earlier this week in Salon by Nathan Lean. Shortly thereafter, I recieved an email from Sam Harris claiming, among other things, that the column by Hussain took out of context several of his quotes. I wasn't persuaded at all by Harris' arguments, and encourage everyone to read both Hussain and Lean's well- documented columns, but repeatedly offered to publish our email exchange and then tweet a link to it so that everyone could make up their own minds (Hussain, in his column, linked to the full Harris columns from which he was quoting). Now that Harris has requested it, I'm publishing our email exchange - in full and unedited - below: SH to GG Glenn -- Before you retweet defamatory garbage about me to 125,000 people, it would nice if you looked at the article from which that joker had mined that "very revealing quote." The whole point of my original article, written in 2006, was to bemoan the loss of liberal moral clarity in the war on terror--and to worry about the influence of the Christian conservatives in the U.S. and fascists in Europe. http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-end-of-liberalism/ Here is the very revealing quote in context: Increasingly, Americans will come to believe that the only people hard-headed enough to fight the religious lunatics of the Muslim world are the religious lunatics of the West. Indeed, it is telling that the people who speak with the greatest moral clarity about the current wars in the Middle East are members of the Christian right, whose infatuation with biblical prophecy is nearly as troubling as the ideology of our enemies. Religious dogmatism is now playing both sides of the board in a very dangerous game. While liberals should be the ones pointing the way beyond this Iron Age madness, they are rendering themselves increasingly irrelevant. Being generally reasonable and tolerant of diversity, liberals should be especially sensitive to the dangers of religious literalism. But they aren't. The same failure of liberalism is evident in Western Europe, where the dogma of multiculturalism has left a secular Europe very slow to address the looming problem of religious extremism among its immigrants. The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists. To say that this does not bode well for liberalism is an understatement: It does not bode well for the future of civilization. Sam GG to SH Sam - To be honest, I really don't see how that full quote changes anything. You are indeed saying - for whatever reasons - that the fascists are the ones speaknig most sensibly about Islam, which is all that column claimed. I know Murtaza's writings really well and he's always trustworthy and diligent, and I think he was here, too. I'm not sure how you can blame me for tweeting an article published in Al Jazeera and written by a respectable commentator, but I'm happy to post your email to me - or some edited version of it as you wish - and tweet that, too. Glenn Greenwald SH to GG You have got to be kidding… A few points that it would be nice to get into your brain: 1. There is absolutely nothing racist about my criticism of Islam. I criticize white, western converts in precisely the same terms--in fact, I am even more critical of them, because they weren't brainwashed into the faith from birth. And one of my main concerns--always ignored by "trustworthy and diligent" people like Murtaza--is for all the suffering of women, homosexuals, freethinkers, and intellectuals in indigenous Muslim societies. One of my friends (and heroes) is Ayaan Hirsi Ali--whom I'm constantly having to defend from similarly tendentious attacks from my fellow liberals. How you get "racism" out of these convictions, I'll never know. (But you know how Murtaza would summarize this point: "Harris says, 'Some of my best friends are black'!") The truth is that the liberal (multicultural) position on Islam is racist. If a predominantly white community behaved this way--the Left would effortlessly perceive the depth of the problem. Imagine Mormons regularly practicing honor killing or burning embassies over cartoons... 2. I wasn't making common cause with fascists -- I was referring to the terrifying fact (again, back in 2006), that when you heard someone making sense on the subject of radical Islam in Europe--e.g. simply admitting that it really is a problem--a little digging often revealed that they had some very unsavory connections to Anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant, neo-Nazi, etc. hate groups. The point of my article was to worry that the defense of civil society was being outsourced to extremists. 3. If you can't see that Murtaza's article is an unscrupulous exercise in quote-mining, you're not paying attention. How can I blame you for retweeting it? The article is defamatory-- indeed, it is beneath responding to--and it was destined to be buried in noise until you retweeted it. You endorsed it and amplified its effects--hence my annoyance. What part of that process don't you understand? Sam GG to SH Sam - You can sneer and hurl insults all you want, but I've long believed that the crowd of which you're a part has been flirting with, and at times embracing, Islamophobia. I'm sure you saw the Salon article by Nathan Lean from a couple days ago, which I believe I also tweeted, that made the same point (http://www.salon.com/2013/03/30/dawkins_harris_hitchens_new_atheists_flirt_with_islamoph obia/). I understand "the process" perfectly fine. I think you're embarrassed that people are now paying attention to some of the darker and uglier sentiments that have been creeping into this form of athesim advocacy, and are lashing out at anyone helping to shine a light on that. A bizarre and wholly irrational fixation on Islam, as opposed to the evils done by other religions, has been masquerdaing in the dark under the banner of rational atheism for way too long. The fact that you intended to convey a more-in-sorrow-than-anger tone when praising fascists for their uniquely "sensible" view of Islam doesn't change the fact that you did say exactly what Murtaza said you said. My offer to publish our whole email exchange and then tweet it still stands so that anyone is able to decide for themselves. Let me know if you'd like me to do that. Glenn SH to GG Glenn -- Yes, I saw the Lean piece -- also absurdly unfair. The idea that "new atheism" is a cover for a racist hatred of Muslims is ridiculous (and, again, crudely defamatory). I have written an entire book attacking Christianity. And do you know what happens when I or any of my "new atheist" colleagues criticize Christians for their irrational beliefs? They say, "Of course, you feel free to attack us, but you would never have the courage to criticize Islam." As you can see, our Christian critics follow our work about as well as you do. Needless to say, there are people who hate Arabs, Somalis, and other immigrants from predominantly Muslim societies for racist reasons. But if you can't distinguish that sort of blind bigotry from a hatred and concern for dangerous, divisive, and irrational ideas--like a belief in martyrdom, or a notion of male "honor" that entails the virtual enslavement of women and girls--you are doing real harm to our public conversation. Everything I have ever said about Islam refers to the content and consequences of its doctrine. And, again, I have always emphasized that its primary victims are innocent Muslims-- especially women and girls. There is no such thing as "Islamophobia." This is a term of propaganda designed to protect Islam from the forces of secularism by conflating all criticism of it with racism and xenophobia. And it is doing its job, because people like you have been taken in by it. Did you happen to see The Book of Mormon? Do you know how the Mormons protested this attack upon their faith? They placed ads for Mormonism in the Playbill. Imagine staging a similar production about Islam: Would it be "bizarre and wholly irrational" for Trey Parker and Matt Stone to worry that the Muslim community might have a different response? Your treatment of these issues, and of me in this email exchange, has been remarkably disingenuous. If I had endorsed a similarly libelous attack on you and broadcast it to all my readers, you would also be annoyed. Just imagine how you would view me if I then defended my actions in the way that you have here, claiming that you are just "embarrassed" to have been found out to be the racist that you are. Yes, I think we should publish this. It might be useful for our readers to see how difficult it is to have an honest conversation about these things, even in private. Sam My further reply to Harris is set forth in my Guardian column today - here. Postado há 2nd April por Glenn Greenwald 99 Visualizar comentários 14. Mar 24 Bro-gressives who praise the Rand Paul filibuster Various Democratic partisans - ironically led by the all-male group blog (and overwhelmingly (exclusively?) straight-white-male blog) LGM - have spent two straight weeks falsely suggesting that the leading supporters of Rand Paul's anti-drone filibuster are males, often implying that they are only white males. They've even adopted a slur designed to promote this lie, "bro-gressives": meaning, white male progressives who support the Paul filibuster. To maintain this deceit, they deliberately - and quite tellingly and characteristically - ignore and silence the numerous prominent women and people of color who have vocally praised the Paul filibuster, literally pretending they don't exist: ACLU's Laura Murphy: "As a result of Sen. Paul's historic filibuster, civil liberties got two wins: the Obama administration disclaimed authority to use an armed drone within the United States in the absence of a Pearl Harbor-style attack, but more importantly, Americans learned about the breathtakingly broad claims of executive authority undergirding the Obama administration's vast killing program. "There is now a truly bipartisan coalition in Congress and among the public demanding that President Obama turn over the legal opinions claiming the authority to kill people far from a battlefield, including American citizens. We are not a country of secret rules, particularly when the rules unilaterally justify the killing of as many as 4,700 people, including four American citizens." Falguni Sheth, Salon: "Although it broke no records, Paul's filibuster met with telling widespread negative reactions on the parts of liberals and progressives. . . . Yet instead of expressing outrage, Democrats continued to acquiesce to the White House's radical expansion of executive power. And they turned on Rand Paul, even though his objections should have been shared not just by liberals, but by everyone with even a passing respect for the rule of law. . . . "Rather than challenge a Democratic administration in defense of constitutional principles that all citizens should insist be guaranteed, Democrats embraced party tribalism. . . . Is Paul a racist? Here's a better question: Is Paul any more racist in his economic and drug policy endorsements than the White House in its policies of kill lists, targeted killings, drone strikes, TSA no-fly and watch lists, Department of Homeland Security's Secure Communities program or "See Something, Say Something" policy? Is Rand Paul more of a threat to black and brown populations (American or foreign) than the current administration, which deported more than 1.5 million migrants during its first term and separated tens of thousands of migrant parents from their children? Is Rand Paul more of a threat to our safety than the current administration? Democrats should have participated in Paul's filibuster until the answer they received was an unconditional "no" to the question of targeted killings of Americans on American soil. Former White House official Van Jones, on CNN: "Sen. Rand Paul was a hero yesterday, and what I've been hearing was a lot of shame from liberals and progressives. . . . I think this is a watershed moment . . . . We have this undefinied, ill-defined war and we have not had the conversation we need to have. What Rand Paul did was use the filibuster how it's supposed to be used. . . . "It's wrong to call it a stunt . . . .This was not a stunt. It was democracy. . . .The shame is that liberals and progressives have given a pass to any adminstration on civili liberties issues. I see Rand Paul as a civil rights villain. . . . but Rand Paul was a hero last night on civil liberties, and liberals and progressives should be ashamed." Rachel Maddow, MSNBC, as reported by The Huffington Post: "Rachel Maddow . . . gave Paul her nightly 'Best New Thing In The World' designation, and spoke to Ron Wyden, the lone Democrat who joined him in his filibuster. She said that partisan politics were definitely playing a role in Paul's actions, and she criticized him for what she called his "gratuitous Hitler references.' But she also said the filibuster was 'dramatic and significant and full of meaning,' and praised Paul for staying on his feet." Liza Sabater, repeatedly praising the Paul filibuster on Twitter and criticizing Dems for not supporting it: And: And: Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, as reported by BuzzFeed: Asked about Democrats' lack of support for [Paul's] filibuster, Missouri's Sen. Claire McCaskill offered, "A lot of people weren't in the building yesterday." "I am 100 percent behind him that we need drone oversight," she told BuzzFeed, adding that she respected "his overall theme." Margaret Kimberly, Black Agenda Report: Rand Paul was denounced as the wrong man with the right message, but most Democrats were too craven to deliver any message at all on the high crimes of their president and his killing assistant. . . . Yet when members of the United States Senate had the opportunity to stand against an imperial president claiming a right to murder, it was Paul instead of supposedly liberal Democrats who took to the Senate floor for thirteen hours in an act of protest against what ought to be a high crime. Rand Paul proved that there is almost no one charged with upholding the Constitution who will actually do it. Democrats attacked the Bush administration when it claimed a right to designate anyone an enemy combatant and destroy their rights to due process. But in a twist reminiscent of Alice falling down the rabbit hole, it is now Democrats who stand idly by while both domestic and international law is torn asunder by one of their own. In an example of politics making strange bedfellows, leftists can thank Paul for proving a point they have been making for years. The Democratic Party is not just ineffectual, it is actually a partner with the Republicans working against the aims of achieving a peaceful and just country and world. The women of Code Pink: Former CAP writer Zaid Jilani: And: And, most revealingly: The thinking seems to be that if the Reality-Based Community of progressive blogs continues to just pretend that these women and people of color don't exist - if they just scream "bro-gressives!" enough times - then maybe these commentators and activists will just disappear from view: just like they hope that the fact that the victims of President Obama's militarism are overwhelmingly non-white and Muslim will be forgotten. Most of these commentators and activists have harshly criticized Paul in the past, and even did so while they praised his filibuster, because they recognize the simple and obvious truth that many Democratic loyalists do not: you can praise a politician's stance on a discrete issue while still vehemently opposing others that they hold. But as Jilani points out, the ugliest aspect of this whole spectacle is not only watching these progressives silence the voices of women and people of color who give the lie to their narrative, but even worse, continually mocking and demeaning the work against Obama's militaristic policies and civil liberties abridgments because those policies overwhelmingly harm non-white Muslims and thus have no effect on these sneering Good Progressives, protected by their privilege against these abuses and therefore free to deride efforts against them. Postado há 24th March por Glenn Greenwald 4 Visualizar comentários 15. Mar 14 Boeing's ad in Politico Postado há 14th March por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 16. Mar 11 Email from Charlie Savage on Awlaki killing The exact date that Awlaki went on "the list" is one of several issues that we dug into at length, and while we were able to mosaic together some answers to some previously outstanding questions this one remains murky. The starting point is that there is a contradiction in the early-leaks public record between Dana's anonymous source in that late January 2010 article you point to, who said "late 2009," and Scott's anonymous source in this April 2010 article http://goo.gl/RYzRN, who said "earlier this year" i.e. 2010. Moreover even if "late 2009" were correct, that could mean either pre or post underwear bombing. While it is clear that Fort Hood elevated Awlaki's profile and led to a big push to find out more about him, as best as we can tell that push seems to have been oriented initially toward identifying anyone else whom he may have been in contact with (i.e. who may be the next Hasan?); we found no one who told us of any decision to specifically target him before Abdulmutallab's attack. Webster's Fort Hood report also has several passages that support the notion that it was only in the aftermath of the underwear bombing that the US government decided that he was directing attacks rather than merely inspiring people, as someone at the ACLU pointed out to me during the course of this project. The notion that there is a singular "kill list" is also a bit of an oversimplification, which could add to the fog. First, as Scott and Jo Becker explained in their big piece last May http://goo.gl/uZ4bZ, there are two different procedures – one for JSOC and one for CIA – and within those separate processes there are escalating steps – one is nominated for consideration before a decision is made, etc. And of course there can't be an order to shoot until a target is located and the specific circumstances in that window of opportunity are evaluated. So it could be that the discrepancy is that there were different steps in climbing that ladder for Awlaki, one in late 2009 (perhaps putting him on the nominations list for evaluation?) and another in early 2010 (perhaps the completion of the first memo saying it would be lawful, as part of that evaluation?). Importantly, as we reported, Abdulmutallab's acknowledgement that he was sent by Awlaki (and Asiri, the bombmaker, of course) when he resumed talking in late Jan/early Feb, and the wealth of detail he recounted, was a clincher to them that he was personally involved in the underwear attack, but it was not an out-of-the-blue revelation. Intel agencies had zeroed in on him very quickly in its aftermath through other means, possibly electronic intercepts. But despite these educated guesses or speculation, we all still have a lot of unanswered questions about this. Just as how the Abdulrahman strike came to go so disastrously wrong – what exactly was the bad intel and why was it so off, who else did they think may have been down there, were they aware it was an public eatery rather than some kind of private encampment or compound, etc – remains murky, there is much that is left to be told about this. We did our best to advance the ball and succeeded in some respects, I think, but just as we are still fighting in court to get the real memos out, the work is not done. ______________ Again I think the oversimplification is in looking for a singular point in time in that period at which they decided to kill him and he went on "the list." Instead it appears the narrative is more like attention to him is escalating and they are thinking seriously about it. But the decision to order a target's killing is not made until he is located and they can see where he is at that moment of opportunity, who else is around him, what would be involved logistically in getting the drones or whatever to that spot, what the context is. The legal analysis is developed to be part of that decision if and when the time comes to make it. So if they had located him before Abdulmutallab's fuller confession, then decision would have been made based on whatever signals intercepts they had developed before then that tied him to the plot, but since they didn't find him for a long time all this stuff had time to accumulate. Postado há 11th March por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 17. Mar 7 ACLU on Rand Paul ACLU Comment on John Brennan's Confirmation to CIA Director FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 07, 2013 WASHINGTON – The Senate today voted 63-34 to confirm John Brennan as director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Brennan's confirmation came after a bipartisan coalition objected to the secrecy surrounding President Obama's targeted killing program and began to assert congressional oversight over this unlawful White House policy. The effort was capped off by a nearly 13-hour filibuster by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. "As a result of Sen. Paul's historic filibuster, civil liberties got two wins: the Obama administration disclaimed authority to use an armed drone within the United States in the absence of a Pearl Harbor-style attack, but more importantly, Americans learned about the breathtakingly broad claims of executive authority undergirding the Obama administration's vast killing program," said Laura W. Murphy, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington Legislative Office. "There is now a truly bipartisan coalition in Congress and among the public demanding that President Obama turn over the legal opinions claiming the authority to kill people far from a battlefield, including American citizens. We are not a country of secret rules, particularly when the rules unilaterally justify the killing of as many as 4,700 people, including four American citizens." During the past six weeks, steps towards transparency have included the President's State of the Union commitment to disclose more information on the killing program, several of the eleven Justice Department legal opinions released to the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, a disavowal of authority to use armed drones domestically, and two congressional oversight hearings. There also have been new promises of a public explanation of the killing program by President Obama, possible subpoenas for the legal memos from the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, and expanded efforts by key members of the Intelligence and Judiciary committees to obtain the legal opinions and exercise greater oversight over the killing program. "We're glad to hear commitments from Congress to provide meaningful oversight over the killing program as well as a new promise from President Obama to provide a fuller explanation of it to the public," Murphy said. "However, there is no substitute for providing the legal opinions to both Congress and the American people, and no one should accept anything less than being able to read for ourselves what the government is claiming it can do." The ACLU currently has two Freedom of Information Act lawsuits pending before federal appeals courts in Washington and New York seeking the release of Office of Legal Counsel memos and other records concerning the targeted killing program. More information is at: www.aclu.org/national-security/targeted-killings Postado há 7th March por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 18. Mar 7 Jeff Merkley on Brennan Merkley: Brennan Not Right Person for the Job Washington, DC- Oregon's Senator Jeff Merkley issued the following statement after voting against John Brennan's nomination to be the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. "The Bush Administration was far too quick to sacrifice our core constitutional values that guarantee freedom in the name of fighting terrorism, and while the Obama administration has attempted to turn the page on some important infringements on civil liberties, too many of those Bush-era policies continue. We need new leadership in our intelligence community to help steer our nation toward a clear re-affirmation of our values. John Brennan, an inside player in both administrations, is not the right person for that job. "I have deep concerns with the Obama Administration's continuation of Bush-era policies related to warrantless wiretapping and the collection of electronic records pertaining to the activities of ordinary citizens. I have concerns about policies that allow the administration to strip due process rights from Americans it chooses to deem enemy combatants. Those lost rights constitute core Constitutional values including the requirement to show cause for detaining a citizen, the right to a public trial, and the right to confront those who bear evidence against you. I am also deeply concerned about the implications of the administration's policy on drone strikes. And I am troubled that so much of the legal justification for these policies remains secret, preventing Congress, let alone the American people, from weighing the trade-offs. "We can and should protect America from our enemies without compromising the very essence of American freedom and rule of law. We need someone at the CIA who will lead us towards counterterrorism policies that reflect and respect Americans' deep faith in our Constitution. I don't believe John Brennan is the right person for that challenge." Postado há 7th March por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 19. Mar 7 Trust in political leaders Thomas Jefferson, 1798: "In questions of power . . . let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." John Adams, 1792: "There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty." Postado há 7th March por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 20. Feb 26 March speaking events On Saturday, March 2 at 7:00 pm, I'll be in Portland, Oregon, speaking at the annual Liberty Dinner of the ACLU of Oregon. Ticket and event information are here. On Monday, March 4, at 1:00 pm, I'll be speaking in Brooklyn, New York, at Brooklyn College. The event is open to the public; event information is here. On Tuesday, March 5, at 9:00 am, I'll be speaking in Washington, DC at the Freedom2Connect conference. Event information is here. On Tuesday, March 5, at 5:30 pm, I'll be speaking in Amherst, MA, at Hamsphire College. Event information is here. On Wednesday, March 6, at 6:00 pm, I'll be speaking in New Haven, CT, at Yale Law School. The event is open to the public; event information is here. On Thursday, March 7 at 7:00 pm, I'll be speaking in Brockport, NY at the College of Brockport. Postado há 26th February por Glenn Greenwald 10 Visualizar comentários 21. Feb 22 Brennan on geographic limits From Brennan's written responses to the questions submitted by the Senate Intelligence Committee Postado há 22nd February por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 22. Feb 19 The public opinion fallacy Progressives often excuse Obama's embrace of these extremist Bush/Cheney terror policies on the ground that Americans support these policies and therefore he's constrained. But that claim reverses causation: it is true that politicians sometimes follow public opinion, but it's also true that public opinion often follows politicians. In particular, whenever the two political parties agree on a policy, it is almost certain that public opinion will overwhelmingly support it. When Obama was first inaugurated in 2009, numerous polls showed pluralities or even majorities in support of investigations into Bush- era criminal policies of torture and warrantless eavesdropping.That was because many Democrats believed Obama would pursue such investigations (because he led them to believe he would), but once he made clear he opposed those investigations, huge numbers of loyal Democrats followed their leader and joined Republicans in opposing them, thus creating majorities against them. Obama didn't refrain from investigating Bush-era crimes because public opinion opposed that. The reverse was true: public opinion supported those investigations, and turned against them only once Obama announced he opposed them. We see this over and over: when Obama was in favor of closing Guantanamo and ending Bush-era terrorism policies, large percentages supported him (and even elected him as he advocated that), but then once he embraced those policies as his own, large majorities switched and began supporting them. Postado há 19th February por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 23. Feb 14 Lawsuit threats to Brooklyn College CUNY TRUSTEE, JEWISH LEADERS AND LEADING CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY CALL UPON BROOKLYN COLLEGE TO MAKE IMMEDIATE CHANGES OR WILL COMMENCE LAWSUIT February 13, 2013 --- A press conference will be hosted where Jewish students from Brooklyn College, Jeff Wiesenfeld, a 14-year CUNY trustee, noted-civil rights attorney Neal Sher and Jewish communal leaders will gather to demand that Brooklyn College adopt immediate policy changes. The Press conference is being held in response to Jewish students being wrongly ejected from an event hosted by the school in support of the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. The event will be held at 888 Seventh Avenue, 12th Floor (57th Street) at 12:30 PM on Thursday, February 14th. Atendees will include: Jeff Wiesenfeld – 14-year CUNY trustee, former aide to Governor Pataki and other elected officials: "As a trustee who has observed for many years the heroic leadership of Chancellor Goldstein in restoring the reputation of CUNY, I will not stand by as the cancer of faux "academic freedom" is used to malign people indiscriminately and damage the reputation of our University, as cited by President Obama in last night's State of the Union. We need a new paradigm. For too long the august principles of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) have been corrupted: teaching has morphed into proselytizing, debate into propaganda, "free and open exchange" into harassment and exclusion. Not all groups play by the rules. It is time for a national discussion on intellectual diversity – the one diversity disappearing from our campuses. Organizations which have a demonstrable record of exclusion, harassment of others, prohibited political propaganda or even physical disruption or violence - should and must be excluded." Neal Sher – former Special war Crimes Prosecutor, US Dept. of Justice: " I wish to make clear that the paradigm where some groups were "exempt" from the protections afforded by Title VI of the US Civil Rights Act. These federal statutes afford Jewish students the same protection and rights to a safe and unhindered educational environment as their peers in other ethnic groupings. I am prepared to commence legal proceeding s against the City University of New York if guidelines are not adopted which would prevent the violations we witnessed recently at Brooklyn College of the civil and constitutional rights of Jewish students at a Brooklyn College event sponsored by its Political Science department. Dovid Efune – editor-in-chief, Algemeiner Journal, which came into possession of audio recording documenting the falsehood of allegations of disruptive behavior by Jewish students made by Brooklyn College administrators: "we had reported on the initial narrative from both sides and were quite surprised when Brooklyn College came out quite forcefully on the side of the BDS organizers. We were shocked to discover upon hearing the tape that the allegations were baseless, and that Brooklyn College had lied to the public by taking sides without securing sufficient evidence of what took place first." Students will also be available for interview. Postado há 14th February por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 24. Feb 14 Lawsuit threats to Brooklyn College CUNY TRUSTEE, JEWISH LEADERS AND LEADING CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY CALL UPON BROOKLYN COLLEGE TO MAKE IMMEDIATE CHANGES OR WILL COMMENCE LAWSUIT February 13, 2013 --- A press conference will be hosted where Jewish students from Brooklyn College, Jeff Wiesenfeld, a 14-year CUNY trustee, noted-civil rights attorney Neal Sher and Jewish communal leaders will gather to demand that Brooklyn College adopt immediate policy changes. The Press conference is being held in response to Jewish students being wrongly ejected from an event hosted by the school in support of the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. The event will be held at 888 Seventh Avenue, 12th Floor (57th Street) at 12:30 PM on Thursday, February 14th. Atendees will include: Jeff Wiesenfeld – 14-year CUNY trustee, former aide to Governor Pataki and other elected officials: "As a trustee who has observed for many years the heroic leadership of Chancellor Goldstein in restoring the reputation of CUNY, I will not stand by as the cancer of faux "academic freedom" is used to malign people indiscriminately and damage the reputation of our University, as cited by President Obama in last night's State of the Union. We need a new paradigm. For too long the august principles of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) have been corrupted: teaching has morphed into proselytizing, debate into propaganda, "free and open exchange" into harassment and exclusion. Not all groups play by the rules. It is time for a national discussion on intellectual diversity – the one diversity disappearing from our campuses. Organizations which have a demonstrable record of exclusion, harassment of others, prohibited political propaganda or even physical disruption or violence - should and must be excluded." Neal Sher – former Special war Crimes Prosecutor, US Dept. of Justice: " I wish to make clear that the paradigm where some groups were "exempt" from the protections afforded by Title VI of the US Civil Rights Act. These federal statutes afford Jewish students the same protection and rights to a safe and unhindered educational environment as their peers in other ethnic groupings. I am prepared to commence legal proceeding s against the City University of New York if guidelines are not adopted which would prevent the violations we witnessed recently at Brooklyn College of the civil and constitutional rights of Jewish students at a Brooklyn College event sponsored by its Political Science department. Dovid Efune – editor-in-chief, Algemeiner Journal, which came into possession of audio recording documenting the falsehood of allegations of disruptive behavior by Jewish students made by Brooklyn College administrators: "we had reported on the initial narrative from both sides and were quite surprised when Brooklyn College came out quite forcefully on the side of the BDS organizers. We were shocked to discover upon hearing the tape that the allegations were baseless, and that Brooklyn College had lied to the public by taking sides without securing sufficient evidence of what took place first." Students will also be available for interview. Postado há 14th February por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 25. Feb 12 Chris Hayes on the "no-alternative" fallacy for justifying drones Chris Hayes monologue on drones - 2/10/13: And besides: it's war, would you rather, I am often asked by supporters of the kill list, that we have boots on the ground, big expensive, destructive deadly disastrous land invasions of countries like the Iraq war? Isn't the move from wars like Iraq to "surgical strikes" in Yemen precisely the kind of change we were promised? This narrow choice between big violence and smaller violence shows, I think, just how fully we have all implicitly adopted the conceptual framework of the War on Terror, how much George W. Bush's advisers continue to set the terms of our thinking years after they'd been dispatched from office. Because that argument presupposes that we are at war and must continue to be at war until an ill-defined enemy is vanquished. What, people ask, is the alternative to small war, if not big war? And the answer no one ever seems to even consider is: no war. If the existence of people out in the world who are actively working to kill Americans means we are still at war, then it seems to me we will be at war forever, and will surrender control over whether that is the state we do in fact want to be in. There's another alternative: we can be a nation that declares its war over, that declares itself at peace and goes about rigorously and energetically using intelligence and diplomacy and well-resourced police work to protect us from future attacks. The Obama administration quite ostentatiously jettisoned the phrase war on terror from its rhetoric, but it's preserved and further expanded its fundamental logic and legal architecture. Even after the troops come home from Afghanistan, we will still be a nation at war. In 1832, German military theorist Carl von Clausewitz declared that "War is an act of force, and there is no logical limit to the application of that force….a clash of forces freely operating and obedient to no law but their own." Much of the history of war and international law in the last century, particularly after the horror of the second world war, was an attempt to prove Clausewitz wrong. But we shouldn't fool ourselves. We may find ourselves at some point facing a stark choice between the war we are now fighting and the law which we all at least pretend is the bedrock of our republic. I say we choose the law. _______________ [GG: I'd add: The assumption that there would be full-scale war without drones is itself dubious in the extreme. Drones are risk-free and easy means of killing; if they did not exist, it's hardly the case that full-scale war would inevitably replace them - as though the US would be invading and occupying Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan in their absence. Because drones are risk-free and easy means of killing, they make war and violence much more likley, not less likely. The "alternative" to killing people with drones is not full-scale war but a cessation of America's Endless War that they have played no small role in furthering, combined with law enforcement and security operations against any terrorism that actually exists (and that terrorism would almost certainly be less once the US ceases running around the world killing at will]]. Postado há 12th February por Glenn Greenwald 2 Visualizar comentários 26. Feb 7 City Councilman Stephen Lvevin to constituents Dear Neighbor, Thank you for contacting me to voice your opinion about the upcoming Brooklyn College event, "BDS Movement Against Israel." As your representative in the New York City Council, I appreciate your feedback on this and other important issues. After careful consideration, I have decided to withdraw my name from the letter sent by members of the City Council to the President of Brooklyn College, Karen Gould. This letter, as you have noted, contained language that could be interpreted as a threat to remove funding from Brooklyn College. While I disagree with many aspects of the BDS movement and I believe that some of their statements are inflammatory and counter-productive to the goal of a peaceful two-state solution, I believe deeply in the principle of free speech and in the right of academic institutions to allow the open exchange of differing points of view. We may or may not agree on the merits of BDS, but we can surely agree that upholding the First Amendment is essential to our democracy. I also want to make clear that I would in no way base my support for Brooklyn College on such considerations, and I support Brooklyn College and the entire CUNY system, despite my criticism of BDS and the Brooklyn College Political S cience department's co-sponsorship of the forum. Thank you again for sharing your concerns about the letter with me. I hope that we can continue to have candid conversations about important issues facing our community. Please feel free to contact me at any time, either by email at email@example.com or by phone at 718-875- 5200. Sincerely, Stephen Levin Councilmember, 33rd District Postado há 7th February por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 27. Feb 2 Email exchange with Alan Dershowitz - February 1, 2013 GG to AD Professor Dershowitz - I'm writing a piece on the controversy over the BDS event at Brooklyn College. I have a few of questions: (1) You yourself have previously spoken at this college, including when you delivered the Political Science Department's annual Konefsky Lecture (coincidentally, I'm giving that same lecture next month at Brooklyn College). On that occasion, you spoke alone. You've spoken alone on other occasions at the school. Why is that different? Should they have had someone next to you who disagrees with your views? Did you request that? (2) As a long-time advocate of free speech and academic freedom, do you view it as concerning that local political officials are now trying to interfere in BC's events and dictate to the PoliSci deparmtent how they should hold such events? (3) Why shouldn't advocates of a movement be able to gather at an event to debate tactics and strategies without having someone there who objects to the movement itself? (4) PoliSci departments host a wide range of speakers. Indeed, the one at BC hosted you. Is it fair to view their sponsorship of an event as an endorsement of the ideas expressed by the participants? Thanks - Glenn Greenwald THE GUARDIAN AD to GG Dear Mr. Greenwald: Before I respond to your questions I have two questions for you: 1. Are your editors aware that you are an active participant in the controversy at Brooklyn College about which you are writing—that you have threatened to cancel your speech if the event is cancelled? 2. Are your readers going to be made aware of your bias in this matter? Now to answer your questions. First, I hope you will emphasize that I would be completely opposed to any cancellation of the event. As I have written in all of my articles, I want the event to go forward. My sole objection is to the fact that the political science department has officially "endorsed" and "co-sponsored" the event. Your absurd comparison between this highly politicized advocacy event and the Konefsky lectures reveals your bias. I was selected to give the Konefsky lecture by the Konefsky family about 40 years ago. It was an entirely academic lecture. Much of it was devoted to memorializing my great professor, Samuel Konefsky (who would be appalled by the invocation of his name for the support of BDS.) I have no problem with an academic department sponsoring an academic lecture. I would be just as opposed to the political science department endorsing and co- sponsoring an event advocated increased Israeli settlement on the West Bank. (Of course the political science department would never sponsor such an event.) If and when I come to Brooklyn College to speak against BDS, I do not expect the event to be co- sponsored by the political science department. It will be sponsored by student and outside groups, as this event should be. I am opposed to any officials trying to stop the BDS event from taking place. But I think it is perfectly appropriate for all concerned citizens to speak to the issue of principle. Namely: whether departments, which include students who are taking classes, should be officially endorsing highly contentious and divisive issues. What if the political science department had decided to officially endorse Mitt Romney's campaign for president? You would be jumping up and down in furry. If you don't like that analogy, you would be jumping just as high if the political science department , or any other department, were to sponsor an event by pro settlement advocates demanding more building in the West Bank. I believe there should be a rule prohibiting any department from co- sponsoring or endorsing one sided political events that are not academic in nature. Any other approach denies academic freedom to students who disagree with the official political line of the department and risks putting them in fear of being downgraded or otherwise discriminated against for deviating from the "party line." Every school I've ever been associated with has such a rule. At Harvard, professors can't even use their official Harvard stationary to advocate political positions. They are, of course, free to do so with their own stationary and without the university's imprimatur. In this case, it is crystal clear that the political science department 's co-sponsorship and endorsement of these extremist speakersdoes constitute an endorsement of BDS. The best proof is that they have refused to endorse anti-BDS events or even pro-Israel speakers who advocate the two state solution and an end to the settlements. If you can't see through the charade of the political science department 's claim of neutrality, then you don't deserve to be a journalist. Of course advocates of a movement should be able to gather at an event to debate tactics and strategies without having someone there who objects to the movement itself. The absurd way in which you pose the question again reveals your bias Do you know anyone who objects to the BDS movement gathering to debate among themselves? Do you think that the political science department should officially sponsor and endorse such an unacademic meeting that deals with tactics and strategies? Would you favor the political science department endorsing or sponsoring a gathering of Republicans debating tactics and strategies as to how to roll back health care or how to pack the Supreme Court? I don't think I've ever heard a more ridiculous analogy or question. I would expect you to hide your bias with a little more subtlety. I am sending a copy of this letter to the editor of the Guardian, because I don't trust you—as an advocate—to report my views fairly and in context. I am also publishing your letter and mine online as a further protection against your anticipated mischaracterization of my views based on your history and your advocacy position. I hope you will surprise me and actually present my views fairly, fully and in context. Sincerely, Alan M. Dershowitz Harvard Law School GG to AD Thanks for the responses. As for your two questions: 1. Are your editors aware that you are an active participant in the controversy at Brooklyn College about which you are writing—that you have threatened to cancel your speech if the event is cancelled? YES, because I wrote this expressly when I wrote about the controversy several days ago (see Item 7: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/29/obama-guantanamo-pentagon- cyber-yemen). 2. Are your readers going to be made aware of your bias in this matter? YES, they will once again be informed of this, because I intend to reiterate this commitment when I write about this again. Finally, feel free, of course, to publish this in full. I intended to do so anyway when I publish the piece, as that is my standard practice. AD to GG I've now read your totally deceptive and dishonest article on bds at bc. You never discuss the issue of formal departmental sponsorship and endorsement. Not do you address the issues I raise in my shoe on the other foot article. I am sending you an updated version which I hope ( but doubt. ) you will honestly address. GG to AD "You never discuss the issue of formal departmental sponsorship and endorsement." You seem to have missed this sentence: "Earlier this year, the college's Political Science Department decided to sponsor a panel discussion on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement aimed at stopping Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, featuring Palestinian and BDS activist Omar Barghouti and US philosopher Judith Butler." I don't think the Political Science Department at Brooklyn College needs to please local politicians - or you - when deciding which events they want to sponsor for the students. If the Department had sponsored an event on Israel and only invited "pro-Israel" speakers - or if they had an event on torture and only invited you but no torture opponents - the very idea that you would object is so absurd that I doubt even you could manage to claim it with a straight face. This is about you wanting to stop events that contain opinions you dislike about Israel. And I'm confident most rational people can see that. AD to GG First of you I am and always have been an opponent of all torture. I favor accountability if torture is to be used. Even you should understand the difference. Second I would oppose a pro Israel event being sponsored by a department. GG to AD Oh, OK - I guess you just forget to mention your opposition to torture when you proposed your torture courts and wrote: "Torture, it turns out, can sometimes produce truthful information." http://www.alandershowitz.com/publications/docs/torturewarrants.html Yes, you argued that torture warrants were preferable to judge-free torture, but never argued in that piece that torture should not be used. Multiple sentences suggested you believe it should be -- which is why, as you know, the perception of you as pro-torture is very widespread. AD to GG I recently told someone who invited me to give a talk on Israel that the talk should not be sponsored by the school or a department. But you wouldn't understand a principled point of view whether its about Israel, torture or free speech. I don't know whether you feign ignorance as a cover for your bias or whether the ignorance is real. Either way... GG to AD But you wouldn't understand a principled point of view whether its about Israel, torture or free speech. I have a long history - as both a lawyer and a journalist - of defending the free speech rights of people expressing views I find utterly repellent (including Matt Hale and the World Church of the Creator, whose free speech rights you refused to defend), so this is really not a very good claim to make about me. GG to AD I recently told someone who invited me to give a talk on Israel that the talk should not be sponsored by the school or a department. Can you identify where this happened? Would love to follow up on it for inclusion in what I write. AD to GG Of course I defended hale's free speech rights. He fired me because I wanted to contribute his fee to anti racist groups like the NAACP. Dershowitz also sent the text to his article on this case, here. Postado há 2nd February por Glenn Greenwald 3 Visualizar comentários 28. Jan 29 Contact information: Brooklyn College President Karen Gould (718.951.5671 - firstname.lastname@example.com - firstname.lastname@example.com) Provost William Tramontano (718.951.5864; email@example.com) Director of Communications and Public Relations Jeremy Thompson (718.951.5882; firstname.lastname@example.com). Postado há 29th January por Glenn Greenwald 9 Visualizar comentários 29. Jan 26 Frequently told lies (FTLs) by Glenn Greenwald Anyone who develops any sort of platform in US political debates becomes a target of hostility and attack. That's just the nature of politics everywhere. Those attacks often are advanced with falsehoods, fabrications and lies about the person. In general, the point of these falsehoods is to attack and discredit the messenger in lieu of engaging the substance of the critiques. There are a series of common lies frequently told about me which I'm addressing here. During the Bush years, when I was criticizing George Bush and the GOP in my daily writing and books, there was a set of lies about me personally that came from the hardest-core Bush followers that I finally addressed. The new set comes largely from the hardest-core Obama followers. I've ignored these for awhile, mostly because they have never appeared in any consequential venue, but rather are circulated only by anonymous commenters or obscure, hackish blogs. That is still the case, but they've become sufficiently circulated that it's now worthwhile to address and debunk them. Anyone wishing to do so can judge the facts for themselves. The following lies are addressed here: 1. I work/worked for the Cato Institute 2. I'm a right-wing libertarian 3. I supported the Iraq War and/or George Bush 4. I moved to Brazil to protest US laws on gay marriage 5. Because I live in Brazil, I have no "skin in the game" for US politics 6. I was sanctioned or otherwise punished for ethical violations in my law practice ______________ I work/worked for the Cato Institute I am not now, nor have I ever been, employed by the Cato Institute. Nor have I ever been affiliated with the Cato Institute in any way. The McCarthyite tone of the denials is appropriate given the McCarthyite nature of the lie. In seven-plus years of political writing, I have written a grand total of twice for Cato: the first was a 2009 report on the success of drug decriminalization in Portugal, and the second was a 2010 online debate in which I argued against former Bush officials about the evils of the surveillance state. I not only disclosed those writings but wrote about them and featured them multiple times on my blog as it happened: see here and here as but two examples. In 2008, I spoke at a Cato event on the radicalism and destructiveness of Bush/Cheney executive power theories. That's the grand total of all the work I ever did for or with Cato in my life. The fees for those two papers and that one speech were my standard writing and speaking fees. Those payments are a miniscule, microscopic fraction of my writing and speaking income over the last 7 years. I have done no paying work of any kind with them since that online surveillance debate in 2010 (I spoke three times at Cato for free: once to debate the theme of my 2007 book on the failure of the Bush administration, and twice when I presented my paper advocating drug decriminalization). I have done far more work for, and received far greater payments from, the ACLU, with which I consulted for two years (see here). I spoke at the Socialism Conference twice - once in 2011 and once in 2012 - and will almost certainly do so again in 2013. I'll speak or write basically anywhere where I can have my ideas heard without any constraints. Moreover, I'll work with almost anyone - the ACLU, Cato or anyone else - to end the evils of the Drug War and the Surveillance State. And I'll criticize anyone I think merits it, as I did quite harshly with the Koch Brothers in 2011: here. The very suggestion that there is something wrong with writing for or speaking at CATO is inane and childish. The claim that it means I "worked at CATO" is just an obvious lie. If writing for or speaking at CATO makes one a right-wing CATO-employed libertarian, then say hello to the following right-wing libertarian CATO employees, all of whom have been writers for or speakers at the CATO Institute in the past: o Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas (Writing for CATO's Unbound: here and here); o Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden (speaking about surveillance issues at CATO in January, 2011, speaking again at CATO in July, 2012 about FISA, and favorably citing CATO); o Democratic Rep. Jared Polis (defending CATO as "a leader in fighting to end the war in Afghanistan and Iraq and helping to end the War on Drugs"). o the ACLU's Legislative Counsel Michelle Richardson (speaking at the CATO Institute's 2011 event on FISA); o Brown University Professor Glenn Loury (writing for CATO's Unbound); o liberal blogger and Clinton Treasury official Brad DeLong (writing for CATO's Unbound); o Harvard law Professor Lawrence Lessig (writing for CATO's Unbound); o liberal blogger and GWU Professor Henry Farrell (writing for CATO's Unbound); and o Wall Street critic and securities professor William Black (writing for CATO's Unbound). Trying to judge someone for where they write or speak - rather than for the ideas they advocate - is about as anti-intellectual and McCarthyite as it gets. CATO has a far better record of advocacy than the mainstream Democratic Party on vital issues such as opposing the Drug War, secrecy abuses, the Surveillance State, marriage equality for LGBT citizens, anti-war activism, and reforming the excesses of America's penal state. They were attacking Bush and Cheney for power abuses (see here) and aggressive wars (see here) far earlier, and far more loudly, than most mainstream Democratic politicians As is obvious, all sorts of liberals, progressives, and even leftists have written for or spoken at CATO. It's a think tank devoted to debate and discussion of public policy, and invites a wide range of speakers to participate. I'm proud of all the advocacy work I've done against the evils of the Drug War and surveillance abuses -- whether it's at the ACLU, CATO, the Socialism Conference or anywhere else. That's why I write openly about all of that work. But the claim that I've ever worked at CATO or was in any way affiliated with them is just an outright lie. I'm a right-wing libertarian Ever since I began writing about politics back in 2005, people have tried to apply pretty much every political label to me. It's almost always a shorthand method to discredit someone without having to engage the substance of their arguments. It's the classic ad hominem fallacy: you don't need to listen to or deal with his arguments because he's an X. Back then - when I was writing every day to criticize the Bush administration - Bush followers tried to apply the label "far leftist" to me. Now that I spend most of my energy writing critically about the Obama administration, Obama followers try to claim I'm a "right-wing libertarian". These labels are hard to refute primarily because they've become impoverished of any meaning. They're just mindless slurs used to try to discredit one's political adversaries. Most of the people who hurl the "libertarian" label at me have no idea what the term even means. Ask anyone who makes this claim to identify the views I've expressed - with links and quotes - that constitute libertarianism. I don't really care what labels get applied to me. But - beyond the anti-war and pro-civil- liberties writing I do on a daily basis - here are views I've publicly advocated. Decide for yourself if the "libertarian" label applies: * opposing all cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (here and here); * repeatedly calling for the prosecution of Wall Street (here, here and here); * advocating for robust public financing to eliminate the domination by the rich in political campaigns, writing: "corporate influence over our political process is easily one of the top sicknesses afflicting our political culture" (here and here); * condemning income and wealth inequality as the by-product of corruption (here and here); * attacking oligarchs - led by the Koch Brothers - for self-pitying complaints about the government and criticizing policies that favor the rich at the expense of ordinary Americans (here); * arguing in favor of a public option for health care reform (repeatedly); * criticizing the appointment of too many Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street officials to positions of power (here, here and here); * repeatedly condemning the influence of corporate factions in public policy making (here and here); * praising and defending the Occupy Wall Street movement as early and vocally as anyone (here, here and here) * using my blog to raise substantial money for the campaigns of Russ Feingold and left-wing/anti-war Democrats Normon Solomon, Franke Wilmer and Cecil Bothwell, and defending Dennis Kucinich from Democratic Party attacks; * co-founding a new group along with Daniel Ellsberg, Laura Poitras, John Cusack, Xeni Jardin, JP Barlow and others to protect press freedom and independent journalism (see the New York Times report on this here); * co-founding and working extensively on a PAC to work with labor unions and liberal advocacy groups to recruit progressive primary challengers to conservative Democratic incumbents (see the New York Times report on this here); To apply a "right-wing libertarian" label to someone with those views and that activism is patently idiotic. Just ask any actual libertarian whether those views are compatible with being a libertarian. Or just read this October, 2012 post - written on Volokh, a libertarian blog - entitled "Glenn Greenwald, Man of the Left", which claims I harbor "left-wing views on economic policy" and am "a run-of-the-mill left-winger of the sort who can be heard 24/7 on the likes of Pacifica radio" because of my opposition to cuts in Social Security and Medicare. There is no doubt that I share many views with actual libertarians, including: opposition to a massive surveillance state, support for marriage equality for LGBT citizens, restraints on government power to imprison or kill people without due process, opposition to the death penalty and the generally oppressive US penal state, contempt for the sadistic and racist drug war, disgust toward corporatism and crony capitalism, and opposition to aggressive wars and the ability of presidents to wage them without Congressional authority. It's also true that I supported the Citizens United decision on free speech grounds: along with people like the ACLU and Eliot Spitzer (the only politician to put real fear in the heart of Wall Street executives in the last decade and probably the politician most hated by actual libertarians). Liberals and libertarians share the same views on many issues, particularly involving war, civil liberties, penal policies, and government abuse of power. That is why people like Alan Grayson and Dennis Kucinich worked so closely with Ron Paul to Audit the Fed and restore civil liberties. But "libertarianism" has an actual meaning: it's not just a slur to mean: anyone who criticizes President Obama but disagrees with Rush Limbaugh. Anyone who applies this label to me in light of my actual views and work is either very ignorant or very dishonest - or, most likely, both. I supported the Iraq War and/or George Bush These claims are absolutely false. They come from a complete distortion of the Preface I wrote to my own 2006 book, How Would a Patriot Act? That book - which was the first book devoted to denouncing the Bush/Cheney executive power theories as radical and lawless - was published a mere six months after I began blogging, so the the purpose of the Preface was to explain where I had come from, why I left my law practice to begin writing about politics, and what my political evolution had been.. The whole point of the Preface was that, before 2004, I had been politically apathetic and indifferent - except for the work I was doing on constitutional law. That's because, while I had no interest in the fights between Democrats and Republicans, I had a basic trust in the American political system and its institutions, such that I devoted my attention and energies to preventing constitutional violations rather than political debates. From the first two paragraphs: I never voted for George W. Bush — or for any of his political opponents. I believed that voting was not particularly important. Our country, it seemed to me, was essentially on the right track. Whether Democrats or Republicans held the White House or the majorities in Congress made only the most marginal difference. . . . I firmly believed that our democratic system of government was sufficiently insulated from any real abuse, by our Constitution and by the checks and balances afforded by having three separate but equal branches of government. My primary political belief was that both parties were plagued by extremists who were equally dangerous and destructive, but that as long as neither extreme acquired real political power, our system would function smoothly and more or less tolerably. For that reason, although I always paid attention to political debates, I was never sufficiently moved to become engaged in the electoral process. I had great faith in the stability and resilience of the constitutional republic that the founders created. When the Iraq War was debated and then commenced, I was not a writer. I was not a journalist. I was not politically engaged or active. I never played any role in political debates or controversies. Unlike the countless beloved Democrats who actually did support the war - including Obama's Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton - I had no platform or role in politics of any kind. I never once wrote in favor of the Iraq War or argued for it in any way, shape or form. Ask anyone who claims that I "supported" the Iraq War to point to a single instance where I ever supported or defended it in any way. There is no such instance. It's a pure fabrication. At the time, I was basically a standard passive consumer of political news: I read The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Atlantic: the journals that I thought high-end consumers of news would read and which I assumed were generally reliable for getting the basic truth. What I explained in the Preface was that I had major objections to the Iraq war when it was being debated: During the lead-up to the invasion, I was concerned that the hell-bent focus on invading Iraq was being driven by agendas and strategic objectives that had nothing to do with terrorism or the 9/11 attacks. The overt rationale for the invasion was exceedingly weak, particularly given that it would lead to an open-ended, incalculably costly, and intensely risky preemptive war. Around the same time, it was revealed that an invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein had been high on the agenda of various senior administration officials long before September 11. Nonetheless, because of the general faith I had in political and media institutions, I assumed - since both political parties and media outlets and journalists from across the ideological spectrum were united in support of the war - that there must be some valid basis to the claim that Saddam posed a threat. My basic trust in these institutions neutralized the objections I had and led me to passively acquiesce to what was being done ("I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment deferred to, and to the extent that I was able to develop a definitive view, I accepted his judgment that American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this sovereign country."). Like many people, I became radicalized by those early years of the Bush administration. The Preface recounts that it was the 2002 due-process-free imprisonment of US citizen Jose Padilla and the 2003 Iraq War that caused me to realize the full extent of the government's radicalism and the media's malfeasance: "I developed, for the first time in my life, a sense of urgency about the need to take a stand for our country and its defining principles." As I recount in the Preface, I stopped practicing law and pursued political writing precisely because those people who had an obligation to act as adversarial checks on the Bush administration during the start of the war on civil liberties and the run-up to the Iraq War - namely, Congress, courts, and the media - were profoundly failing to fulfill that obligation. I wasn't a journalist or government official during these radical power abuses and the run-up to the Iraq War, and wasn't working in a profession supposedly devoted to serving as watchdog over government claims and abuses. I relied on those people to learn what was going on and to prevent extremism. But I quickly concluded that those who held those positions in politics and journalism were failing in their duties. Read the last six paragraphs of the Preface: I started writing about politics to bring light to these issues and to try to contribute to a real adversarial force against the Bush administration and its blind followers. It is true that, like 90% of Americans, I did support the war in Afghanistan and, living in New York, believed the rhetoric about the threat of Islamic extremism: those were obvious mistakes. It's also true that one can legitimately criticize me for not having actively opposed the Iraq War at a time when many people were doing so. Martin Luther King, in his 1967 speech explaining why his activism against the Vietnam War was indispensable to his civil rights work, acknowledged that he had been too slow to pay attention to or oppose the war and that he thus felt obligated to work with particular vigor against it once he realized the need ("Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam"). I've often spoken about the prime benefit of writing about political matters full-time: namely, it enables you to examine first-hand sources and not have to rely upon media or political mediators when forming beliefs. That process has been and continues to be very eye- opening for me. Like most people who do not work on politics or journalism full-time, I had to rely back then on standard political and media venues to form my political impressions of the world. When I first began writing about politics, I had a whole slew of conventional political beliefs that came from lazy ingestion of the false and misleading claims of these conventional political and media sources. Having the time to examine political realities first-hand has led me to realize how many of those former beliefs I held were based on myth or worse, and I've radically changed how I think about a whole slew of issues as a result of that re-examination. The purpose of the Preface was to publicly explain that evolution. Indeed, the first sentence of this Preface was this quote from Abraham Lincoln: "I do not think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday." When I still trusted and relied upon the claims of the political and media class - when I was basically apolitical and passive - I tacitly accepted all sorts of views which I've come to see are warped and misleading. I've talked often about this process and am proud of this evolution. I have zero interest in hiding it or concealing it. Quite the contrary: I want readers to know about it. That's why I wrote the Preface. But anyone using this Preface to claim I was a "supporter" of the Iraq War is simply fabricating. At worst, I was guilty of apathy and passivity. I did nothing for or against it because I assumed that those in positions to exercise adversarial scrutiny - in journalism and politics - were doing that. It's precisely my realization of how profoundly deceitful and failed are American political and media institutions that motivated me to begin working on politics, and it's those realizations which continue to motivate me now. I moved to Brazil to protest US laws on gay marriage The reason I live in Brazil is very simple. It is not because I voluntarily left the US to protest any laws. The reason is that my spouse of eight years is a Brazilian national. The Defense of Marriage Act bars the issuance by the US government of any and all spousal benefits to same-sex couples, even ones who are legally married. The benefits that are not permitted to be issued to same-sex couples include immigration rights. That means that - unlike for US citizens who marry a foreign national of the opposite sex - I am unable to obtain a visa for my own spouse to live or work in the US. For this reason, we are unable, due to discriminatory laws, to live together in the US. Living in the US would mean living on a different continent than the person with whom I intend to spend the rest of my life. Unlike the US, Brazil - like most civilized countries in the world - provides permanent visas to the same-sex spouses of their gay citizens. That means that I can obtain - and have obtained - a permanent visa to live and work in Brazil because of my marriage to my Brazilian spouse. Therefore - at least as long as DOMA is still the law of the land - Brazil is the only country in which we are able to live together. Thousands of other bi-national same-sex couples are similarly affected by these discriminatory and unjust laws: unable to live together in the US or, worse, when unable to live in either spouse's country, forced to live together illegally or to live apart. I've written and spoken on television many times about this fact. It's particularly revolting to watch self-proclaimed "progressives" - who parade around as champions of anti-discrimination - try to exploit this discriminatory legal framework to discredit the work of gay Americans who are forced to live outside their own country because the US government won't recognize their marriage. Because I live in Brazil, I have no "skin in the game" for US politics The view that US citizens on foreign soil should not be permitted to participate in US political debates - or should have their views discounted - is nothing more than ugly jingoism. It's also grounded in factually false claims. US citizens who live in a foreign country are required to pay income taxes to the US government. They bear every other obligation and right of citizenship, including voting. The view that US citizens on foreign soil should be obligated to pay income taxes and have the right to vote, but not be allowed to participate in debates over US government policy, is ludicrous on its face. Beyond that, in my own case: virtually my entire family resides in the US (parents, sibling, nieces, etc). Most of my life-long friends do. My work is based in the US. I'm in the US very frequently - at least once every four to six weeks - and always fly into, out of, and within it. Most of all, I'm barred from living in my own country with my spouse because of a discriminatory legal framework enacted by both political parties. I have at least as much personal interest in US political debates as any other US citizen. Combine that with the fact that the actions of the US Government, as the world's sole superpower, have profound effects on all parts of the world, and the claim that I should be barred from participating in US political debates or should have my views discounted - because I'm on foreign soil - is as intellectually corrupt as it is an expression of toxic uber-nationalism. I was sanctioned or otherwise punished for ethical violations in my law practice To call this claim a total falsehood is to be generous. Put simply, I have never been sanctioned or disciplined by any court, judge, bar association or anyone else for any work I've ever done as a lawyer. Indeed, in more than 10 years of practice in the very acrimonious world of Manhattan litigation, I never even had a disciplinary complaint filed against me with any bar association. I allowed my New York law license to lapse in 2007 when I ceased practicing simply because - due to my full-time work writing about politics - I no longer intended to practice and thus did not continue to renew it. But the law license is fully valid, and I can easily reinstate it at any time simply by paying the requisite fees and completing whatever continuing legal education requirements apply. The only specific example I've ever seen raised in support of this innuendo was a 2001 ruling on the propriety of my tape recording of a witness which arose in a First Amendment free speech case I litigated in defense of a white supremacist church. When I was in my office in New York (where tape recording witnesses was permitted), I interviewed a witness by telephone who was in Illinois (where tape recording witnesses was not permitted). There was a split in legal authority on which rule applied: the rule of the jurisdiction where the recorder was physically located, or where the witness was physically located. The American Bar Association had expressly ruled that surreptitious tape recordings of witnesses by lawyers was permitted. I took the position that New York rules should apply and the other side took the position that the Illinois rules should apply. The district court judge - 12 years ago - ultimately ruled that Illinois rules applied, but made expressly clear in his written opinion that this was a mere standard legal dispute with reasonable views on both sides, not a question of whether anything unethical had been done: Given the rhetoric in the papers filed with respect to this difficult ethical question, we wish to clarify one last matter. We are applying rules here, not judging character. As the magistrate judge noted, although ultimately unsuccessful, defendants' arguments were reasonable. Defense counsel could have reasonably believed that his conduct was permissible. Although we find that his conduct did violate the rules, our rejection of his position does not equate to an indictment as an unethical person. There was zero sanction, penalty, or any other form of disciplinary action proposed or taken as the result of that. As the district court judge said, it was a "difficult" question on which there was conflicting precedent and the arguments for the legality of the tape recording were "reasonable". Anyone claiming that this was a finding of unethical behavior or that I was sanctioned in any way is either lying or ignorant. I continued to practice law for six years after that. It is true that I defended the First Amendment free speech rights of white supremacists and other people with heinous views - in exactly the way the ACLU has defended the free speech rights of neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan. I'm immensely proud of that work: I would do it again in an instance. Indeed, since I've began political writing, I've defended the free speech rights of all sorts of people whose views I find pernicious. Defending free speech rights typically means defending people with marginalized views because that's where free speech abridgments are typically aimed. People are free to debate that if they wish. But they shouldn't be free to claim that I was ever sanctioned or disciplined as a lawyer or barred from practicing law because - like the above- referenced falsehoods - that is an outright fabrication. Postado há 26th January por Glenn Greenwald 7 Visualizar comentários 30. Jan 22 Joshua Foust on the Guardian Jingoism plus a warped elitism, all packed into one ugly tweet: Postado há 22nd January por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 31. Jan 19 Blake Hounshell re-tweet Foreign Policy Managing Editor's Blake Hounshell re-tweet: Postado há 19th January por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 32. Jan 11 Merkley on Brennan Merkley Statement on Brennan Nomination Washington, DC- Oregon's Senator Jeff Merkley issued the following statement on the nomination of John Brennan as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. "I will certainly be looking to hear how John Brennan responds to concerns that have been raised about his nomination. I have followed reports that Brennan, as a former senior official in the Bush-era CIA, knew about and may have supported controversial programs, including the use of torture, extraordinary rendition, secret prisons, and warrantless wiretapping. If true, connections to these programs would be cause for concern. I want to hear clear answers from him about how he may have been involved in these activities, as well as his vision for the Agency." Postado há 11th January por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 33. Jan 8 Mark Bowden on torture The last two paragraphs of Mark Bowden's 2003 article in The Atlantic, "The Dark Art of Interrogation": The Bush Administration has adopted exactly the right posture on the matter. Candor and consistency are not always public virtues. Torture is a crime against humanity, but coercion is an issue that is rightly handled with a wink, or even a touch of hypocrisy; it should be banned but also quietly practiced. Those who protest coercive methods will exaggerate their horrors, which is good: it generates a useful climate of fear. It is wise of the President to reiterate U.S. support for international agreements banning torture, and it is wise for American interrogators to employ whatever coercive methods work. It is also smart not to discuss the matter with anyone. If interrogators step over the line from coercion to outright torture, they should be held personally responsible. But no interrogator is ever going to be prosecuted for keeping Khalid Sheikh Mohammed awake, cold, alone, and uncomfortable. Nor should he be. Mark Bowden, 2008, "In Defense of Waterboarding" (and here): In the unlikely event that Zubaydah knew nothing of value and that every bit of information he divulged was false, it was still reasonable to assume in 2002 that this was not the case. If his interrogators were able to stop one terror attack by waterboarding him, even if they violated international agreements and our national conscience, it was justified. . . . Which is why I say that waterboarding Zubaydah may have been illegal, but it wasn't wrong Postado há 8th January por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 34. Jan 7 ACLU on Brennan appointment to CIA Brennan Nomination to Head CIA Raises Concerns The counterterrorism advisor's nomination should not proceed until the Senate determines whether his past actions were within the law. WASHINGTON – President Obama this afternoon nominated his counterterrorism advisor John Brennan to become the next director of the CIA. Laura W. Murphy, director of the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office, had the following concerns with the president's choice to fill this critical national security post. Despite media reports that Brennan continually raised civil liberties concerns within the White House, noted Murphy, the Senate should not move forward with his nomination until it assesses the legality of his actions in past leadership positions in the CIA during the early years of the George W. Bush administration and in his current role in the ongoing targeted killing program. "The Senate should not move forward with his nomination until all senators can assess the role of the CIA—and any role by Brennan himself—in torture, abuse, secret prisons, and extraordinary rendition during his past tenure at the CIA, as well as can review the legal authorities for the targeted killing program that he has overseen in his current position," Murphy said. "This nomination is too important to proceed without the Senate first knowing what happened during Brennan's tenures at the CIA and the White House, and whether all of his conduct was within the law. " Murphy also added that a recent Senate Intelligence Committee report could be used to determine the extent of Brennan's role in these programs. "To the extent these questions can be answered by the Intelligence Committee's still- undisclosed report on the CIA's role in torture, the Senate should use the report to determine what role Brennan had and whether his conduct was consistent with both the law and American values," Murphy said. Murphy remarked that the CIA can take two actions now to help restore the rule of law. "The Senate should not move forward with the nomination of John Brennan until it is clear that he is committed to making sure that the CIA will end its targeted killing program, and agree to work with the Senate Intelligence Committee on the declassification review and disclosure of the committee's report on the CIA's past role in torture and abuse," she said. "These steps would help assure all Americans that the past wrongs of the CIA have ended, and won't be brought back." Postado há 7th January por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 35. Dec 14 Zero Dark Thirty and torture Frank Bruni, The New York Times: "[I]t's hard not to focus on them, because the first extended sequence in the movie shows a detainee being strung up by his wrists, sexually humiliated, deprived of sleep, made to feel as if he's drowning and shoved into a box smaller than a coffin. "The torture sequence immediately follows a bone-chilling, audio-only prologue of the voices of terrified Americans trapped in the towering inferno of the World Trade Center. It's set up as payback. "And by the movie's account, it produces information vital to the pursuit of the world's most wanted man. No waterboarding, no Bin Laden: that's what 'Zero Dark Thirty' appears to suggest." Steve Coll, New York Review of Books: [T]he filmmakers cannot, on the one hand, claim authenticity as journalists while, on the other, citing art as an excuse for shoddy reporting about a subject as important as whether torture had a vital part in the search for bin Laden, and therefore might be, for some, defensible as public policy. . . . The easiest question to consider is what Zero Dark Thirty actually depicts about the part torture played in locating bin Laden. . . . There can be no mistaking what Zero Dark Thirty shows: torture plays an outsized part in Maya's success . . . . In virtually every instance in the film where Maya extracts important clues from prisoners, then, torture is a factor. Dexter Filkins, The New Yorker: "Bigelow maintains that everything in the film is based on first-hand accounts, but the waterboarding scene, which is likely to stir up controversy, appears to have strayed from real life. According to several official sources, including Dianne Feinstein, the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, the identity of bin Laden's courier, whose trail led the CIA to the hideout in Pakistan, was not discovered through waterboarding." Peter Bergen, CNN (unpaid adviser to the film): "The compelling story told in the film captures a lot that is true about the search for al Qaeda's leader but also distorts the story in ways that could give its likely audience of millions of Americans the misleading picture that coercive interrogation techniques used by the CIA on al Qaeda detainees -- such as waterboarding, physical abuse and sleep deprivation -- were essential to finding bin Laden. . . . "'Zero Dark Thirty' is a great piece of filmmaking and does a valuable public service by raising difficult questions most Hollywood movies shy away from, but as of this writing, it seems that one of its central themes -- that torture was instrumental to tracking down bin Laden -- is not supported by the facts." Film critic Owen Gleiberman, Entertainment Weekly: "The suspect finally gives up a name: Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, whom he claims works as a courier for bin Laden. Part of the power of Zero Dark Thirty is that it looks with disturbing clarity at the ''enhanced interrogation techniques'' that were used after 9/11, and it says, in no uncertain terms: They worked. This is a bin Laden thriller that Dick Cheney Barack Obama could love. At the same time, the film spins its fearless — and potentially controversial — stance toward the issue of how the U.S. treats its prisoners into a heady international detective thriller." Fordham Law Professor Karen Greenberg, Salon: The sad fact is that Zero Dark Thirty could have been written by the tight circle of national security advisors who counseled President George W. Bush to create the post- 9/11 policies that led to Guantanamo, the global network of borrowed "black sites" that added up to an offshore universe of injustice, and the grim torture practices – euphemistically known as "enhanced interrogation techniques" — that went with them. . . . As its core, Bigelow's film makes the bald-faced assertion that torture did help the United States track down the perpetrator of 9/11. . . . [T]he fact is that Bigelow has bought in, hook, line, and sinker, to the ethos of the Bush administration and its apologists. It's as if she had followed an old government memo and decided to offer in fictional form step-by-step instructions for the creation, implementation, and selling of Bush-era torture and detention policies. Film critic Stuart Klawans, The Nation: "I can easily name twenty better films released in the US in 2012. But as for the torture: I said in my column, and will repeat: the movie revels in it. In a film that's entirely about professionalism—are you, Jessica Chastain, tough enough to do the job?—the ability to overcome a first squeamishness and participate in torture, initiate torture, identify with a torturer as your mentor, is the defining quality of a character who makes herself hard-core enough to earn the respect of Navy SEALs. "Arguments that the film exposes torture as abhorrent are absurd. The movie juices the audience on the adrenaline generated by these physical confrontations, and offers vicariously the sense of power enjoyed by the person holding the leash. "Does the film go further, and present torture as the necessary tool for taking down bin Laden? Absolutely." Emily Bazelon, Slate: "I think the movie has earned its acclaim because film critics aren't fact checkers. And when you do check the facts, you find that while the movie is putting a thumb on the scale for torture, the film doesn't get the role it played in the Bin Laden chase condemnably wrong. I do think the movie reads as pro-torture, and as someone who opposes the practice, I wish that it didn't. . . . "When Amar is led around by a dog collar and then finally, horribly stuffed into a tiny wooden box, we recoil at this treatment and feel Amar's pain—but we also feel Maya's sense of urgency. At the end of the interrogation scenes, I felt shaken but not morally repulsed, because the movie had successfully led me to adopt, if only temporarily, Maya's point of view: This treatment is a legitimate way of securing information vital to U.S. interests." Greg Mitchell, The Nation: "In summary, I'd simply say that those picking apart various scenes and pointing to key details in the film are not wrong in suggesting that the film's depiction of torture helping to get bin Laden is muddled at best—but the overall impression by the end, for most viewers, probably will be: Yes, torture played a key (if not the key) role." Film critic David Edelstein, New York Magazine: "It also borders on the politically and morally reprehensible. By showing these excellent results—and by silencing the cries of the innocents held at Abu Ghraib, Bagram, and other 'black sites'—it makes a case for the efficacy of torture." Novelist Bret Easton Ellis: "The most morally dubious, obtuse and overrated movie of 2012: Zero Dark Thirty." Michelle Shepard, national security reporter, The Toronto Star: "[F]or the greater movie-going public it will be hard not to walk away with the impression that this type of interrogation was a necessary evil – at the very least, an essential part of the CIA's tool box when forced to operate in what Cheney famously dubbed 'the dark side.'" Jane Mayer, the New Yorker: "Yet what is so unsettling about 'Zero Dark Thirty' is not that it tells this difficult history but, rather, that it distorts it . . . . "In addition to excising the moral debate that raged over the interrogation program during the Bush years, the film also seems to accept almost without question that the C.I.A.'s 'enhanced interrogation techniques' played a key role in enabling the agency to identify the courier who unwittingly led them to bin Laden. But this claim has been debunked, repeatedly, by reliable sources with access to the facts. . . . "In addition to providing false advertising for waterboarding, 'Zero Dark Thirty' endorses torture in several other subtle ways. . . . The filmmakers subtly put their thumb on the pro-torture scale, as Emily Bazelon put it, in another scene, too. . . .[B]y the time millions of Americans have seen this movie, they will believe that, as Frank Bruni put it in a recent Times column, 'No waterboarding, no bin Laden.'" Oscar-winning filmmaker Alex Gibney: It's difficult for one filmmaker to criticize another. That's a job best left to critics. However, in the case of Zero Dark Thirty, about the hunt for Osama bin Laden, an issue that is central to the film -- torture -- is so important that I feel I must say something. Mark Boal and Kathryn Bigelow have been irresponsible and inaccurate in the way they have treated this issue in their film. . . . I want to focus my concern on the way in which the film is fundamentally reckless when it comes to the subject of torture . . . . [I]t's a cop-out for Boal and Bigelow to say they shouldn't be held to account for the meaning of their film because "it's just a movie," and/or because it's a "journalistic account." In the context of the final result, neither statement is credible. When it comes to torture, the film fails the truth test for both accountants and poets. Acting CIA Director Michael Morrell: I would not normally comment on a Hollywood film, but I think it important to put Zero Dark Thirty, which deals with one of the most significant achievements in our history, into some context. The film. . . the film takes significant artistic license, while portraying itself as being historically accurate. [T]he film creates the strong impression that the enhanced interrogation techniques that were part of our former detention and interrogation program were the key to finding Bin Ladin. That impression is false. Senators John McCain, Dianne Feinstein (Chair, Intelligence Committee) & Carl Levin (Chair, Armed Services Committee): Regardless of what message the filmmakers intended to convey, the movie clearly implies that the CIA's coercive interrogation techniques were effective in eliciting important information related to a courier for Osama bin Laden. We have reviewed CIA records and know that this is incorrect". . . . The use of torture in the fight against terrorism did severe damage to America's values and standing that cannot be justified or expunged. It remains a stain on our national conscience. We cannot afford to go back to these dark times, and with the release of Zero Dark Thirty, the filmmakers and your production studio are perpetuating the myth that torture is effective. Xeni Jardin, BoingBoing: My problem with "Zero Dark Thirty" isn't just that it validates the use of torture, and sends a clear message that the systematic violation of human rights, drone strikes, and extrajudicial assassinations are just the dirty truths that "protecting our freedom" requires. My problem is that its use of accurate documentary detail and artistic verisimilitude seems not merely a weak justification for its inaccurate depiction of torture's value, but a way of drawing the eye to it, a whispering and surreptitious endorsement. Michael Wolff, the Guardian: The controversy about the movie involves its unambiguous cause and effect assertion that the torture of al-Qaida principals and hangers on was the key to finding Osama bin Laden – ie: torture works. . . . Kathryn Bigelow is a fetishist and a sadist, which, in a literary sense, certainly has a fine tradition. But without some acknowledgement that this is her lonely journey and not a shared one – not our collective reality, not a set of accepted assumptions but, for better or worse, her own particular, problematic kink – all you have is a nasty piece of pulp and propaganda. Terry McDermott, LA Times: In a riveting opening section, the film obliquely credits the discovery of the key piece of information in the search for Bin Laden to the torture of an Al Qaeda prisoner held by the CIA. This is at odds with the facts as they have been recounted by journalists reporting on the manhunt, by Obama administration intelligence officials and by legislative leaders. Bigelow and her writing partner, Mark Boal, are promoting "Zero Dark Thirty" in part by stressing its basis in fact. It's curious that they could have gotten this central, contentious point wrong. And because they originally set out to make a movie about the frustrating failure to find Bin Laden, it's hard to believe their aim was to celebrate torture. But that's in effect what they've done. Dan Froomkin, The Huffington Post: Zero Dark Thirty is a despicable movie, even if Bigelow and Boal didn't intend it that way. . . . Do yourself a favor, and don't go see this movie. Don't encourage film-making that at best offers ambiguity about torture, and at worst endorses it. Spend the two and a half hours and the $10 on something more valuable, and moral. NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake: Saw #ZD30. Portrayal is gov't propaganda film. Leaves no doubt torture got leads. Torture scenes tame compared 2 reality. Ends justifies means. Former US Air Force Col. Morris Davis, Chief Prosecutor in the Guantanamo military commissions: Nothing was tortured more in the making of Kathryn Bigelow's film "Zero Dark Thirty" than the truth about torture. While it's just a movie, it runs the risk of becoming the basis for a false view of reality for millions of moviegoers who have largely ignored a decade of debate about the efficacy of the United States sanctioning torture. . . . This is Hollywood's version of reality about torture. It is a false reality that does a disservice to our many effective interrogators who obtain critical intelligence through humane methods, as well as the public who deserve to know the truth about torture. Mother Jones film critic Asawin Suebsaeng: Director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter—and former journalist— Mark Boal explicitly draw a (patently false) link between the savage torture of Islamist detainees and finding Osama bin Laden. And that's a hell of a thing for Boal to do, given that he began his last movie by quoting the rabidly anti-torture lefty Chris Hedges. Mehdi Hasan, Political Director, the Huffington Post UK: [T]he truth is that the entire plotline of ZDT is built on a lie: that the torture of detainees by the CIA produced the intelligence which led the US to Osama Bin Laden's hideout in Abbottad, Pakistan. In pushing this false narrative, the movie effectively excuses and implicitly condones the torture that was done by the Agency - it was a necessary means to an important end; it worked as a method of intelligence-gathering; it was vital to protect America and track down Bin Laden. Actor and Academy member David Clennon: I'm a member of Hollywood's Motion Picture Academy. At the risk of being expelled for disclosing my intentions, I will not be voting for Zero Dark Thirty - in any Academy Awards category. . . . Torture is an appalling crime under any circumstances. Zero never acknowledges that torture is immoral and criminal. It does portray torture as getting results. . . . Individuals and groups protesting the easy tolerance of torture in Zero Dark Thirty have been dismissed by some commentators as having "a political agenda." The grievous problem presented by torture is not political. It's moral. And it's criminal. Michael Hastings, BuzzFeed: [T]he film lets the men and women of the Central Intelligence Agency play the protagonists with the true claim to Bin Laden's scalp. This is not a coincidence. The CIA played a key role in shaping the film's narrative, corresponding with the filmmakers to negotiate favorable access to a movie that one CIA official described as "get[ting] behind the winning horse" of the "first and biggest" movie about the Bin Laden raid, according to internal CIA emails obtained by Judicial Watch. Chris Hayes, MSNBC: "I had a moral revulsion to the film." It "colludes with evil". It's "objectively pro-torture." _____________ See also: Peter Maass, The Atlantic: "Don't Trust 'Zero Dark Thirty': The acclaimed thriller about the hunt for Osama bin Laden represents a troubling new frontier of government- embedded filmmaking." Postado há 14th December 2012 por Glenn Greenwald 2 Visualizar comentários 36. Dec 3 Canine fun with porcupines Postado há 3rd December 2012 por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 37. Nov 27 Orwell on drone cheerleaders Orwell, Homage to Catalonia, on how lack of personal risk increases likelihood of war support: "One of the most horrible features of war is that all the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting" . . .. "The people who write that kind of stuff never fight; possibly they believe that to write it is a substitute for fighting. It is the same in all wars; the soldiers do the fighting, the journalists do the shouting, and no true patriot ever gets near a front-line trench, except on the briefest of propaganda-tours. "Sometimes it is a comfort to me to think that the aeroplane is altering the conditions of war. Perhaps when the next great war comes we may see that sight unprecedented in all history, a jingo with a bullet-hole in him." Postado há 27th November 2012 por Glenn Greenwald 1 Visualizar comentários 38. Nov 27 Konczal and Kessler on Citizens United A few points about the interesting, enlightening Bloggingheads discussion between Mike Konczal (Rortybomb, New Deal 2.0, Roosevelt Institute) and Jeremy Kessler (n+1, Yale University) regarding, among other things, my 2010 argument on Citizens United (views I updated this year, here): (1) It's difficult to claim there's something inherently libertarian (in a right-wing sense) about a pro-CU position given that not only the ACLU, but also people like Eliot Spitzer, have embraced it. Spitzer is arguably the only political official of this generation to put genuine fear in the hearts of Wall Street, and, at the height of his power, nobody was more loathed by actual libertarians than he. If there's one person who doesn't merit the label "libertarian", it's Spitzer, yet he defended CU. That's because there is a long and noble tradition on the American left - by no means uniform, but still substantial - on insisting upon absolute protection for political speech. Regardless of how radical or even dangerous the speech in question was -- Communist revolutionaries, racism, neo-Nazism, Islamic extremism, Fred Phelps' disgusting funeral protests -- one finds the Left at the forefront of efforts to bar state restrictions on it. There long has been, and still is, particular left-wing hostility to the argument that the state has some compelling reason to suppress political speech. Civil liberties in general may be the area where trans-ideological coalitions are most possible. That's because civil liberties ultimately exist to protect minority ideas and minority groups from attacks by majoritarian force (through the democratic state), and there are minority ideas on both sides of the ideological spectrum. It's why the ACLU and CCR were able to join with the Christian Coalition and other religious conservative groups to oppose, for instance, the Patriot Act, or why the role of Russ Feingold on civil liberties in now played by Rand Paul: all those at the ideological margins are motivated by fear of state/majoritarian suppression. One might reasonably argue that there is a lawyer bias here in terms of how law schools teach the doctrine of "free speech." But I think it's a huge mistake to try to squeeze civil liberties advocacy into traditional left/right ideological labels in order to claim that a pro-CU position is inherently right-wing. If anything is right-wing, I'd say it is the premise at the heart of the anti-CU position: namely, that the state should be empowered to suppress political speech when it can be demonstrated that doing so is necessary to avert bad outcomes. (2) Related to that last point: Jeremy somewhat misstated the position I made at the beginning of my 2010 argument on CU. With that argument, I was not, as Jeremy suggested, advocating for any specific methodology for how the Constitution should be interpreted (i.e., strict constructionism v. original intent v. an evolving document, etc). My argument was about a different issue. I was rejecting a consequentialist opposition to CU (or any other constitutional decision from a court). That is, once you determine - using whatever interpretative methodology you think is optimal - that there is a constitutional prohibition on State Action X, then the mere fact that this prohibition produces bad outcomes is not a good argument for allowing State Action X. In other words, the only valid issue in CU was whether the Free Speech clause bans the legislative provision in question. I wasn't making an argument there about which method of interpretation should be used to answer that question (though I do have views on that: namely, I think the Free Speech clause does ban it). Instead, I was simply pointing out that the prime argument made against CU -- that it will lead to bad outcomes (i.e., worsening the problem of oligarchical domination of politics) -- is not an argument against allowing the legislation if it's inconsistent with the First Amendment. To argue against CU, one has to do the work to mount the constitutional and legal arguments against it, not merely complain that it produces bad outcomes. All sorts of clear constitutional constraints produce bad outcomes. Allowing racists to spread their views, or Fred Phelps to torment mourners, produces bad outcomes. So does barring the police from entering homes at will without a search warrant (that often helps dangerous criminals elude capture). So does barring imprisonment without due process, or requiring a unanimous verdict by a jury of one's peers (which often helps horrible criminals go free). Once you start to argue for the power of courts to simply strike down or uphold laws based solely on their views of the desirability of the consequences - and I think Jeremy came close to doing this, if not actually doing it - then you adhere to the Right's caricature of "judical activism": that the Left, whenever they fail to get their way through the democratic process, wants unelected judges to legislate from the bench. That critique is invalid only if one rejects a purely consequentialist approach to jurisprudunce: court outcomes have to be grounded in something other than outcome preferences in order to be valid (rather than tyrannical) exercises of judicial power. I don't know of a single Supreme Court justice - from the left to the right - who has ever disputed that premise. Lots of judges have surely been driven by outcome preferences in reaching their decisions, by they all at least pretend that it's grounded in constitutional theory, because everyone acknowledges that outcome-driven jurisprudence is undesirable. (3) I don't disagree at all that the ability of the very rich to dominate political discourse is a huge problem. In fact, as I believe I wrote in that CU argument, I think it's one of the top 2 or 3 biggest problems the democracy faces, if not the biggest. So I'm not in favor of the status quo, where the rich dominate political debates with little opposition (that said, I think the effect of CU on this has been wildly overstated, given that the problem was hideous before, and the examples of CU's evil often cited - Sheldon Adelson and the parade of billionaires this year - were free to spend unlimited sums before CU: that case dealt only with restrictions on corporations and unions, not billionaires). I just don't think that empowering the state to ban political speech is the right solution (given the dangers and costs involved). Instead, I strongly favor a system of robust public financing to even the playing field - a solution completely anathema to libertarians. As bad as oligarchy is, there is nothing more dangerous than empowering the state to suppress political speech. Preservation of free speech enables even the most entrenched tyrannies to be challenged and subverted. Suppression of political speech is the greatest danger. Even those who are, in the first instance, happy with how that power is being used almost always come to regret its advocacy. Postado há 27th November 2012 por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 39. Nov 26 Obama habeas Postado há 26th November 2012 por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 40. Nov 7 dog adoption Postado há 7th November 2012 por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 41. Nov 6 InsideHoops.com Postado há 6th November 2012 por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 42. Oct 23 Alan Grayson on the foreign policy debate Dear XXXX Good news and bad news. The good news is that President Obama won last night's debate. The bad news is that the entire debate, questions and answers, seemed premised on the false assumption that virtually everyone else on this planet wants to kill us. Here is a list of the topics last night: (1) Libya embassy attack. (2) War in Syria. (3) Why we shouldn't cut military spending. (4) Israel or the U.S. attacking Iran. (5) The war in Afghanistan. (6) "Divorcing" Pakistan. (7) What is the greatest future threat to our security? In other words, seven variations on the same theme: xenophobia. Fear of foreigners. Let's go over the basic facts. There are two large oceans that separate us from 191 of the 193 other countries in the world. Our northern border has been peaceful since 1812. Our southern border has been peaceful, more or less, since 1848. In the 229 years since the Treaty of Paris, establishing our independence, foreign military forces have attacked American territory only twice - in both cases, on the outermost periphery. So how is it that a "foreign policy" debate can be devoted entirely to the single, narrow subject of who is going to kill whom? It appears that the military-industrial complex has not only occupied huge chunks of the federal budget, but also huge chunks of our political discourse, and even our thinking. Why is it that every candidate for public office keeps pressing that big, red PANIC button? Isn't there anyone out there who will try to put a little love in our hearts? Here are some questions that should have been asked last night, but weren't: (1) What should we do about the 10+ million undocumented people in this country, more than half of whom came here from Mexico? (2) Speaking of Mexico, the drug war in Mexico was the most deadly armed conflict in the world last year, killing more people than the war in Afghanistan and the civil war in Syria combined. What should we do about it? (3) We have run the largest trade deficit in the world every year for roughly the past 20 years. This year, it's half a trillion dollars, again. Other developed countries like Japan and Germany run consistent trade surpluses. What should we do about this? (4) The United States is the only industrialized country without universal healthcare, paid vacations and paid sick leave. Why is this? What should we do about it? (5) Climate change obviously is a worldwide issue. Should the United States participate in efforts to mitigate it? If so, how? (6) There is tremendous suffering now in both Greece and Spain, with unemployment of 25%+. Should we do anything to help people in those countries? (7) In poor countries, three million people die each year of respiratory infections, 2.5 million die each year of diarrhea, and two million die of AIDS. Virtually all of these deaths are avoidable. Should we avoid them? As Charles P. Pierce of Esquire put it, before the debate last night: Trade is foreign policy. The environment is foreign policy. Energy policy is foreign policy. Human rights are foreign policy. Drought is foreign policy. Starvation is foreign policy. War is generally only foreign policy when one of those other things I mentioned get[s] completely out of control. However, as I suspect we will see argued enthusiastically from both sides tonight, war, and not its historic causes, has come to define foreign policy. Increasingly, it has come to define us as a nation as well. This is a problem that, I predict, will not be addressed at all this evening . . . . He was right. It wasn't addressed at all. Look - the world is a beautiful place. I know; I've seen it. This planet is full of people just like us. It's not full of monsters and demons and ogres and beasts. And there are solutions to problems other than "shoot it," "bomb it," "burn it," and "kill it." Let me make this as simple as possible: The Earth - love it or leave it. Courage, Alan Grayson Postado há 23rd October 2012 por Glenn Greenwald 1 Visualizar comentários 43. Oct 10 Twitter exchange with NYT's Matthew Rosenberg Postado há 10th October 2012 por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 44. Sep 24 Andrew Sullivan on Obama Postado há 24th September 2012 por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 45. Sep 18 Why do they hate us? Via Cracked.com: Postado há 18th September 2012 por Glenn Greenwald 2 Visualizar comentários 46. Sep 14 October/November speaking events From October 15-19, I'll be at several colleges on the West Coast, speaking as part of the FFF/YAL College Civil Liberties Tour along with Bruce Fein and Jacob Hornsberger. All events are free and open to the public. Those dates are as follows: On Monday, October 15, at 7:00 p.m., I'll be in Seattle, Washington, to speak at the University of Washington, Smith Hall 120. On Tuesday, October 16, at 7:30 p.m., I'll be in Davis, California, to speak at the University of California-Davis, 1002 Geidt Hall. On Wednesday, October 17, at 7:00 p.m., I'll be in San Diego, California, to speak at the University of California-San Diego, Student Services Center - Multi-Purpose Room. On Thursday, October 18, at 7:00 p.m., I'll be in Tuscon, Arizona, to speak at the University of Arizona, CESL 103. On Friday, October 19, at 7:00 p.m., I'll be in Boulder, Colorado, to speak at the University of Colorado-Boulder, Humanities 1B50. On Saturday, October 20, at 8:00 p.m., I'll be in Ottawa, Canada, to deliver the keynote speech on the Surveillance State to the Defense Counsel Association of Ottawa's Annual Criminal Law Conference. Event and ticket information are here. On November 10, at 7:00 p.m., I'll be in Seattle, Washington, to speak at the 2012 Bill of Rights celebration of the ACLU in Washington. Ticket and event information are here. On November 13, I'll be in New York, New York, at the documentary film festival DOC NYC, to moderate a panel discussion with documentary film makers including Laura Poitras, Jeremy Scahill and others. Some event information can be found here. On November 17, I'll be in San Jose, California, to speak at the 2012 annual benefit for the Bay Area office of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). Ticket and event information are here. Postado há 14th September 2012 por Glenn Greenwald 1 Visualizar comentários 47. Sep 8 Cynicism as enabling force for power abuses August 29, 2012 The fact that a certain behavior is common does not negate its being corrupt. Indeed, as is true for government abuses generally, those in power rely on the willingness of citizens to be trained to view corrupt acts as so common that they become inured, numb, to its wrongfulness. Once a corrupt practice is sufficiently perceived as commonplace, then it is transformed in people's minds from something objectionable into something acceptable. Indeed, many people believe it demonstrates their worldly sophistication to express indifference toward bad behavior by powerful actors on the ground that it is so prevalent. This cynicism – oh, don't be naive: this is done all the time – is precisely what enables such destructive behavior to thrive unchallenged. Postado há 8th September 2012 por Glenn Greenwald 3 Visualizar comentários 48. Sep 8 Believing oppression only happens elsewhere August 26, 2012 It is very easy to get people to see oppression and tyranny in faraway places, but very difficult to get them to see it in their own lives ("How dare you compare my country to Tyranny X; we're free and they aren't"). In part that is explained by the way in which desire shapes perception. One naturally wants to believe that oppression is only something that happens elsewhere because one then feels good about one's own situation ("I'm free, unlike those poor people in those other places"). Thinking that way also relieves one of the obligation to act: one who believes they are free of oppression will feel no pressure to take a difficult or risky stand against it. But the more significant factor is that one can easily remain free of even the most intense political oppression simply by placing one's faith and trust in institutions of authority. People who get themselves to be satisfied with the behavior of their institutions of power, or who at least largely acquiesce to the legitimacy of prevailing authority, are almost never subjected to any oppression, even in the worst of tyrannies. Why would they be? Oppression is designed to compel obedience and submission to authority. Those who voluntarily put themselves in that state – by believing that their institutions of authority are just and good and should be followed rather than subverted – render oppression redundant, unnecessary. Of course people who think and behave this way encounter no oppression. That's their reward for good, submissive behavior. As Rosa Luxemburg put this: "Those who do not move, do not notice their chains." They are left alone by institutions of power because they comport with the desired behavior of complacency and obedience without further compulsion. But the fact that good, obedient citizens do not themselves perceive oppression does not mean that oppression does not exist. Whether a society is free is determined not by the treatment of its complacent, acquiescent citizens – such people are always unmolested by authority – but rather by the treatment of its dissidents and its marginalized minorities. In the US, those are the people who are detained at airports and have their laptops and notebooks seized with no warrants because of the films they make or the political activism they engage in; or who are subjected to mass, invasive state surveillance despite no evidence of wrongdoing; or who are prosecuted and imprisoned for decades – or even executed without due process – for expressing political and religious views deemed dangerous by the government. People who resist the natural human tendency to follow, venerate and obey prevailing authority typically have a much different view about how oppressive a society is than those who submit to those impulses. The most valuable experiences for determining how free a society is are the experiences of society's most threatening dissidents, not its content and compliant citizens. It was those who marched against Mubarak who were detained, beaten, tortured and killed, not those who acquiesced to or supported the regime. That is the universal pattern of authoritarian oppression. The temptation to submit to authority examined by Compliance bolsters an authoritarian culture by transforming its leading institutions into servants of power rather than checks on it. But worse, it conceals the presence of oppression by ensuring that most citizens, choosing to follow, trust and obey authority, do not personally experience oppression and thus do not believe – refuse to believe – that it really exists. Postado há 8th September 2012 por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 49. Sep 8 Media and academia as servants of authority and power August 26, 2012 There are multiple institutions that are intended to safeguard against this ease of inducing blind trust in and obedience to authorities. The most obvious one is journalism, which, at its best, serves as a check against political authority by subjecting its pronouncements to skepticism and scrutiny, and by acting in general as an adversarial force against it. But there are other institutions that can and should play a similar role. One is academia, a realm where tenure is supposed to ensure that authority's most sacred orthodoxies are subjected to unrelenting, irreverent questioning. Another is the federal judiciary, whose officials are vested with life tenure so as to empower them, without regard to popular sentiment, to impose limits on the acts of political authorities and to protect the society's most scorned and marginalized. But just observe how frequently these institutions side with power rather than against it, how eagerly they offer their professional and intellectual instruments to justify and glorify the acts of political authority rather than challenge or subvert them. They will occasionally quibble on the margins with official acts, but their energies are overwhelmingly devoted to endorsing the legitimacy of institutional authority and, correspondingly, scorning those who have been marginalized or targeted by it. Their collective instinct on any issue is to rush to align themselves with the sentiment prevailing in elite power circles. Most denizens in these realms would be hard-pressed to identify any instances in which they embraced causes or people deeply unpopular within those circles. Indeed, they judge their own rightness – they derive vindication – by how often they find themselves on the side of elite institutions and how closely aligned they are with the orthodoxies that prevail within them, rather than by how often they challenge or oppose them. It is difficult to overstate the impact of this authority-serving behavior from the very institutions designed to oppose authority. As Zobel, the writer and director of Compliance, notes, most people are too busy with their lives to find the time or energy to scrutinize prevailing orthodoxies and the authorities propagating them. When the institutions that are in a position to provide those checks fail to do that, those orthodoxies and authorities thrive without opposition or challenge, no matter how false and corrupted they may be. As much as anything else, this is the institutional failure that explains the debacles of the last decade. There is virtually no counter-weight to the human desire to follow and obey authority because the institutions designed to provide that counter-weight – media outlets, academia, courts – do the opposite: they are the most faithful servants of those centers of authority. Postado há 8th September 2012 por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment 50. Sep 8 British media & Assange August 22, 2012 But the contempt is far more intense, and bizarrely personal, from the British press, much of which behaves with staggering levels of mutually-reinforcing vindictiveness and groupthink when it's time to scorn an outsider like Assange. On Tuesday, Guardian columnist Seumas Milne wrote a superb analysis of British media coverage of Assange, and observed that "the virulence of British media hostility towards the WikiLeaks founder is now unrelenting." Milne noted that to the British press, Assange "is nothing but a 'monstrous narcissist', a bail- jumping 'sex pest' and an exhibitionist maniac" – venom spewed at someone "who has yet to be charged, let alone convicted, of anything" . . . . There are several obvious reasons why Assange provokes such unhinged media contempt. The most obvious among them is competition: the resentment generated by watching someone outside their profession generate more critical scoops in a year than all other media outlets combined (see this brilliant 2008 post, in the context of the Clintons, about how professional and ego-based competition produces personal hatred like nothing else can). Other causes are more subtle though substantive. Many journalists (and liberals) like to wear the costume of outsider-insurgent, but are, at their core, devoted institutionalists, faithful believers in the goodness of their society's power centers, and thus resent those (like Assange) who actually and deliberately place themselves outside of it. By putting his own liberty and security at risk to oppose the world's most powerful factions, Assange has clearly demonstrated what happens to real adversarial dissidents and insurgents – they're persecuted, demonized, and threatened, not befriended by and invited to parties within the halls of imperial power – and he thus causes many journalists to stand revealed as posers, servants to power, and courtiers. Then there's the ideological cause. As one long-time British journalist told me this week when discussing the vitriol of the British press toward Assange: "Nothing delights British former lefties more than an opportunity to defend power while pretending it is a brave stance in defence of a left liberal principle." That's the warped mindset that led to so many of these self-styled liberal journalists to support the attack on Iraq and other acts of Western aggression in the name of liberal values. And it's why nothing triggers their rage like fundamental critiques of, and especially meaningful opposition to, the institutions of power to which they are unfailingly loyal. Postado há 8th September 2012 por Glenn Greenwald 2 Visualizar comentários 51. Sep 6 Reply to response from CNNi by Glenn Greenwald CNN International has posted a six-point response to my Guardian story from Tuesday on its refusal to broadcast a documentary featuring Amber Lyon showing the repression and violence used against protesters in Bahrain and its substantial financial relationships with the regime in Bahrain and others around the world. But the claims CNNi makes bolster rather than undermine the story, as the point-by-point reply below demonstrates (although I feel compelled to respond, I'm posting this here because it really does not warrant a full-scale Guardian column). But before getting to my point-by-point reply, I want to highlight what CNNi revealingly does not address. CNNi has nothing to say about the extensive financial dealings it has with the regime in Bahrain (what the article called "the tidal wave of CNNi's partnerships and associations with the regime in Bahrain, and the hagiography it has broadcast about it"). It has nothing to say about the repellent propaganda it produces for regimes which pay it. It has nothing to say about the Bahrain-praising sources whose vested interests with the regime are undisclosed by CNN. It provides no explanation whatsoever for its refusal to broadcast the iRevolution documentary. It does not deny that it threatened Lyon's severance payments and benefits if she spoke critically about CNNi's refusal. And it steadfastly ignores the concerns and complaints raised by its own long-time employees about its conduct. In sum, CNNi's response does not deny, or even acknowledge, the crux of the reporting, and simply ignores the vast bulk of the facts revealed about its coverage of, and relationship with, the regime in Bahrain. Indeed, one searches its response in vain for any explanation to the central question which New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof asked nine months ago: As for the points CNNi does make, most of the claims in the article which CNNi attacks are nothing more than CNNi's own transparent strawman inventions, at best wild caricatures of the article's claims. Thus, CNNi purports to debunk as "false" and "misleading" that "CNN International ensured Amber's reporting 'was never seen on television by Bahrainis or anyone else in the region'"; that "Amber and her crew were the principal vehicle for CNN's coverage of Bahrain in 2011"; and that "CNN avoided covering events in Bahrain 'in the first half of 2011'". Plainly, none of those claims is remotely made by the article. Moreover, in many cases, CNNi's responses serve only to demonstrate the accuracy of the article's reporting: CNNi's POINT 1: CNNi says that my "speculation" about its decision not to broadcast the documentary is "false" because "there is nothing unusual about" a simple "programming decision" not to show a documentary commissioned by CNN. Suspicion over CNNi's refusal to broadcast the documentary is not "my speculation." As documented in the article, CNN's own employees were, and to this day remain, mystified and angry about it. One of its own senior news executives emailed Lyon in June 2011 to ask: "Why would CNNI not run a documentary on the Arab Spring, arguably the the biggest story of the decade? Strange, no?" Another long-time employee, quoted in the article, provided multiple reasons why it was, as the source put it, "highly unusual not to air it": namely, that it was purely international in topic, that it was a highly produced and expensive documentary about the most significant international news story in years, that it would have been free programming for the budget- constrained CNNi. All of those reasons are, presumably, what led Kristof to raise this same question with his 1 million-plus followers on Twitter and to ask publicly whether "intimidation" was the cause for CNNi's refusal to broadcast it. Pretending that these issues are nothing more than my "speculation," rather than the suspicions and anger from those who best know CNNi's agenda, accomplishes nothing for anyone who read the article. That CNNi still refuses to provide any explanation whatsoever for its facially bizarre refusal to broadcast this award-winning documentary is telling indeed. CNNi's POINT 2: This is the crux of CNNi's response. It says that "Amber's reporting from Bahrain was actually featured and promoted on CNN International" and that "this happened months before the full documentary aired on CNN US." It then links to multiple appearances by Lyon in April 2011 in which she reported on Bahrain, and says this demonstrates that Lyon's Bahrain reporting "was heavily featured on CNN International." Had I been clear about this, argues CNNi, then "the underlying (and false) premise of [my] article would have fallen apart." That Lyon appeared multiple times on CNNi in April once she returned from Bahrain to report on the violence there does not negate the point of the article. That is the point of the article. The article explicitly described how Lyon, upon her return from Bahrain, did not want to wait until the documentary aired to show the world the repression that she witnessed. She thus went on CNN multiple times to talk about what she saw. It was then -- as a result of that initial spate of reporting from Lyon in April -- that the Bahrainis, who had extensive relationships with CNNi, began complaining vociferously about her and her reporting. It was then that CNNi stopped Lyon from reporting further on Bahrain, denied her requests to return there, and then refused to broadcast the documentary that put the regime in such a negative light. CNNi's response tries to mislead readers into believing that the article omitted discussion of this April reporting Lyon did that was critical of the regime. To the contrary, the article expressly discussed it -- and supplied multiple links to those appearances -- because it was that April reporting from Lyon that led the Bahrainis to object to her hard-hitting reports about the regime, complaints that appear to have been quite successful. From the article: Upon returning from Bahrain in April, Lyon appeared on CNN several times to recount her own detention by security forces and to report on ongoing brutality by the regime against its own citizens, even including doctors and nurses providing medical aid to protesters. She said she did not want to wait for the documentary's release to alert the world to what was taking place. In response, according to both the above-cited CNN employee and Lyon, the regime's press officers complained repeatedly to CNNi about Lyon generally and specifically her reporting for "iRevolution". In April, a senior producer emailed her to say: "We are dealing with blowback from Bahrain govt on how we violated our mission, etc." "It became a standard joke around the office: the Bahrainis called to complain about you again," recounted Lyon. Lyon was also told by CNN employees stationed in the region that "the Bahrainis also sent delegations to our Abu Dhabi bureau to discuss the coverage." . . . In emails to her producers and executives, Lyon repeatedly asked to return to Bahrain. Her requests were denied, and she was never sent back. She thus resorted to improvising coverage by interviewing activists via Skype in an attempt, she said, "to keep Bahrain in the news". So yes, it is indeed true -- exactly as the article expressly and at length described -- that Lyon, upon returning from Bahrain, appeared multiple times on CNN in April to report on the violence from the regime. Those reports were precisely what prompted regime representatives to complain so vocally about her reporting (to get an added sense for how aggressively the regime objected to Lyon's April reporting, and how seriously CNNi took those complaints, see this amazingly propagandistic statement from the regime which CNNi dutifully appended to its own website featuring the video of one of Lyon's reports -- all without comment or response from Lyon or anyone else; this video was one which the CNN P.R. Twitter feed yesterday cited.) From that point forward, Lyon was prevented from reporting on the regime again. And the harrowing documentary which CNN spent more than $100,000 to produce was never shown to Bahrainis or the world outside of CNN's U.S. market because CNNi refused to broadcast it. Those April appearances by Lyon cited by CNNi as though they negate the point of the article and were omitted from it were, in fact, expressly documented in the article because they are what precipitated Bahrain's complaints and CNNi's capitulation to them. CNNi's POINTS 3-6: CNNi makes the same basic point in all four points: that despite blocking Lyon from further reporting on Bahrain, and despite refusing to broadcast the iRevolution documentary, it sent other reporters to Bahrain to cover the events unfolding there. Many of these reports, it claims, were critical of the regime's actions. CNNi adds that there is nothing wrong with including the regime's response to its reporting. Nobody, and certainly nothing in the article, claimed that CNNi has never broadcast any reports critical of the regime in Bahrain. Given the magnitude of the violence, it would have been impossible to maintain a total blackout, and nothing in the article suggested it did. CNNi does not link to any of the reports it touts, so it is difficult to assess what this reporting was. But the article expressly acknowledged that CNNi has on occasion broadcast reports showing the violence and repression in Bahrain, and then explained why that does not negate, or even pertain to, the criticisms of its coverage: CNNi's reports on the violence in Bahrain take a much more muted tone than when it reports on regimes disfavored by the US, such as Iran or Syria. More importantly, the tidal wave of CNNi's partnerships and associations with the regime in Bahrain, and the hagiography it has broadcast about it (see the accompanying commentary on the relationship between the network and the regime), appear to have overwhelmed any truly critical coverage. When the Arab Spring erupted and began spreading to Bahrain, it was not only CNNi that had a long-standing and deep financial relationships to the regime. So, too, did the U.S. government (and it still does). That is why even when Western media outlets such as CNNi reported on the regime's efforts to crush the protest movement in Bahrain, it did so with much more deference and timidity than it uses when it reports on similar repression from regimes which are scorned by the U.S. It was the undiluted, unvarnished tone used by Lyon to highlight how severe the regime's repression had become that distinguished it from the standard, tepid CNNi fare and that made it uniquely objectionable to the regime. As political science professor As'ad AbuKhalil has observed: "When a pro-US dictator kills protesters it is [described as] 'fighting', and when a non-pro-US dictator kills protesters it is considered a massacre, according to Western media standards," even though "it is a massacre in both cases." Indeed, CNN frequently uses the tepid, both-sides-are-to-blame term "clashes" when describing the assaults by the Bahraini regime's security forces on protesters. Lyon's reporting avoided these methods of apology and dilution, which is what made the regime so angry about it. Put another way, can anyone imagine CNNi taking money from the Iranian mullahs or the Assad regime to produce hagiography about their leaders and governance? Can anyone imagine CNNi producing documentaries "in association" with those regimes? Can anyone imagine CNNi forcing its reporters to give prominent play to the plainly false claims of those regimes, or to append without comment to its own video segments aggressive denunciations from those regimes attacking its own reporters and stories? CNNi's fear of alienating western power centers, as described by NYU journalism Professor Jay Rosen in my article, ensures that only U.S.-favored regimes like Bahrain receive such accommodation and deference. So yes, CNNi can point to various reports discussing violence used by the regime in Bahrain: exactly as my article discussed. But what it cannot do, obviously, is deny or even address the two vital points of the article: that (1) it refused to broadcast a highly produced, expensive documentary viscerally conveying the extreme violence and repression from the Bahraini regime in the face of vociferous complaints from the regime; and (2) it pursued and cultivated extensive financial dealings with that regime which infected its coverage in multiple ways and generated heavily promoted hagiography of regime leaders masquerading as "news." Finally, it is worth noting that I sought an interview with CNNi President Tony Maddox, and also sought detailed answers to specific questions from CNNi, before publishing the piece. CNNi refused all of those requests, opting instead to provide a thoroughly generic and vague statement (which was included in the original article). It decided to respond in earnest only after the piece was published. As it turns out, its refusal to comment in any specific way ahead of time now appears understandable: what CNNi ignores in its new response is at least as revealing as what it says. Postado há 6th September 2012 por Glenn Greenwald 2 Visualizar comentários 52. Aug 30 ACLU on Obama DOJ announcement ACLU Comment on Closure of Justice Department's CIA Torture Investigation NEW YORK – Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Justice Department will close its investigation into the CIA's torture and abuse of detainees without bringing charges. "That the Justice Department will hold no one accountable for the killing of prisoners in CIA custody is nothing short of a scandal," said Jameel Jaffer, ACLU deputy legal director. "The Justice Department has declined to bring charges against the officials who authorized torture, the lawyers who sought to legitimate it, and the interrogators who used it. It has successfully shut down every legal suit meant to hold officials civilly liable. "Continuing impunity threatens to undermine the universally recognized prohibition on torture and other abusive treatment and sends the dangerous signal to government officials that there will be no consequences for their use of torture and other cruelty. Today's decision not to file charges against individuals who tortured prisoners to death is yet another entry in what is already a shameful record." Postado há 30th August 2012 por Glenn Greenwald 0 Add a comment Arquivo do blog Quem sou eu Subscribe Carregando http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com/
Pages to are hidden for
"On NSA claims about misreporting of two slides"Please download to view full document