Saturday, August 14, 2010

Brilliant Speech on Gaza

One of you forwarded it to me and I hasten to reprint it here.

There is also a link to further information on Edward Said, something everyone can or should benefit from.

I will let it speak for itself:

This is one of the better speeches about the Palestinian/Israeli situation I’ve read in a long time, sent by a Jewish woman for peace.

From my experience over there – and in our own country - it speaks the truth, especially when and where it hurts.

It’s not what our government or media want us to know or feel.

Ernest+

Published on Monday, August 9, 2010
The Tears of Gaza Must Be Our Tears
by Chris Hedges
Chris Hedges made these remarks Thursday night in New York City at a fundraiser for sponsoring a U.S. boat to break the blockade of Gaza. More information can be found at www.ustogaza.org  .
When I lived in Jerusalem I had a friend who confided in me that as a college student in the United States she attended events like these, wrote up reports and submitted them to the Israel consulate for money. It would be naive to assume this Israeli practice has ended. So, I want first tonight to address that person, or those persons, who may have come to this event for the purpose of reporting on it to the Israeli government. I would like to remind them that it is they who hide in darkness. It is we who stand in the light. It is they who deceive. It is we who openly proclaim our compassion and demand justice for those who suffer in Gaza. We are not afraid to name our names. We are not afraid to name our beliefs. And we know something you perhaps sense with a kind of dread. As Martin Luther King said, the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice, and that arc is descending with a righteous fury that is thundering down upon the Israeli government.
You may have the bulldozers, planes and helicopters that smash houses to rubble, the commandos who descend from ropes on ships and kill unarmed civilians on the high seas as well as in Gaza, the vast power of the state behind you. We have only our hands and our hearts and our voices. But note this. Note this well. It is you who are afraid of us. We are not afraid of you. We will keep working and praying, keep protesting and denouncing, keep pushing up against your navy and your army, with nothing but our bodies, until we prove that the force of morality and justice is greater than hate and violence. And then, when there is freedom in Gaza, we will forgive ... you. We will ask you to break bread with us. We will bless your children even if you did not find it in your heart to bless the children of those you occupied. And maybe it is this forgiveness, maybe it is the final, insurmountable power of love, which unsettles you the most.

And so tonight, a night when some seek to name names and others seek to hide names, let me do some naming. Let me call things by their proper names. Let me cut through the jargon, the euphemisms we use to mask human suffering and war crimes. “Closures” mean heavily armed soldiers who ring Palestinian ghettos, deny those trapped inside food or basic amenities—including toys, razors, chocolate, fishing rods and musical instruments—and carry out a brutal policy of collective punishment, which is a crime under international law. “Disputed land” means land stolen from the Palestinians. “Clashes” mean, almost always, the killing or wounding of unarmed Palestinians, including children. “Jewish neighborhoods in the West Bank” mean fortress-like compounds that serve as military outposts in the campaign of ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. “Targeted assassinations” mean extrajudicial murder. “Air strikes on militant bomb-making posts” mean the dropping of huge iron fragmentation bombs from fighter jets on densely crowded neighborhoods that always leaves scores of dead and wounded, whose only contact with a bomb was the one manufactured in the United States and given to the Israeli Air Force as part of our complicity in the occupation. “The peace process” means the cynical, one-way route to the crushing of the Palestinians as a people.
These are some names. There are others. Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish in the late afternoon of Jan. 16, 2009, had a pair of Israeli tank shells rip through a bedroom in his Gaza apartment, killing three of his daughters—Bessan, Mayar and Aya—along with a niece, Noor.
“I have the right to feel angry,” says Abuelaish. “But I ask, ‘Is this the right way?’ So many people were expecting me to hate. My answer to them is I shall not hate.”
“Whom to hate?” asks the 55-year-old gynecologist, who was born a Palestinian refugee and raised in poverty. “My Israeli friends? My Israeli colleagues? The Israeli babies I have delivered?”
The Palestinian poet Taha Muhammad Ali wrote this in his poem “Revenge”:
At times ... I wish
I could meet in a duel
the man who killed my father
and razed our home,
expelling me
into
a narrow country.
And if he killed me,
I’d rest at last,
and if I were ready—
I would take my revenge!
*
But if it came to light,
when my rival appeared,
that he had a mother
waiting for him,
or a father who’d put
his right hand over
the heart’s place in his chest
whenever his son was late
even by just a quarter-hour
for a meeting they’d set—
then I would not kill him,
even if I could.
*
Likewise ... I
would not murder him
if it were soon made clear
that he had a brother or sisters
who loved him and constantly longed to see him.
Or if he had a wife to greet him
and children who
couldn’t bear his absence
and whom his gifts would thrill.
Or if he had
friends or companions,
neighbors he knew
or allies from prison
or a hospital room,
or classmates from his school …
asking about him
and sending him regards.
*
But if he turned
out to be on his own—
cut off like a branch from a tree—
without a mother or father,
with neither a brother nor sister,
wifeless, without a child,
and without kin or neighbors or friends,
colleagues or companions,
then I’d add not a thing to his pain
within that aloneness—
not the torment of death,
and not the sorrow of passing away.
Instead I’d be content
to ignore him when I passed him by
on the street—as I
convinced myself
that paying him no attention
in itself was a kind of revenge.

And if these words are what it means to be a Muslim, and I believe it does, name me too a Muslim, a follower of the prophet, peace be upon him.
The boat to Gaza will be named “The Audacity of Hope.” But these are not Barack Obama’s words. These are the words of my friend the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. They are borrowed words. And Jerry Wright is not afraid to speak the truth, not afraid to tell us to stop confusing God with America. “We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands [killed] in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye,” Rev. Wright said. “We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”
Or the words of Edward Said  :

Nothing in my view is more reprehensible than those habits of mind in the intellectual that induce avoidance, that characteristic turning away from a difficult and principled position which you know to be the right one, but which you decide not to take. You do not want to appear too political; you are afraid of seeming controversial; you want to keep a reputation for being balanced, objective, moderate; your hope is to be asked back, to consult, to be on a board or prestigious committee, and so to remain within the responsible mainstream; someday you hope to get an honorary degree, a big prize, perhaps even an ambassadorship.
For an intellectual these habits of mind are corrupting par excellence. If anything can denature, neutralize, and finally kill a passionate intellectual life it is the internalization of such habits. Personally I have encountered them in one of the toughest of all contemporary issues, Palestine, where fear of speaking out about one of the greatest injustices in modern history has hobbled, blinkered, muzzled many who know the truth and are in a position to serve it. For despite the abuse and vilification that any outspoken supporter of Palestinian rights and self-determination earns for him or herself, the truth deserves to be spoken, represented by an unafraid and compassionate intellectual.
And some of the last words of Rachel Corrie  to her parents:
I’m witnessing this chronic, insidious genocide and I’m really scared, and questioning my fundamental belief in the goodness of human nature. This has to stop. I think it is a good idea for us all to drop everything and devote our lives to making this stop. I don’t think it’s an extremist thing to do anymore. I still really want to dance around to Pat Benatar and have boyfriends and make comics for my coworkers. But I also want this to stop. Disbelief and horror is what I feel. Disappointment. I am disappointed that this is the base reality of our world and that we, in fact, participate in it. This is not at all what I asked for when I came into this world. This is not at all what the people here asked for when they came into this world. This is not the world you and Dad wanted me to come into when you decided to have me. This is not what I meant when I looked at Capital Lake and said: “This is the wide world and I’m coming to it.” I did not mean that I was coming into a world where I could live a comfortable life and possibly, with no effort at all, exist in complete unawareness of my participation in genocide. More big explosions somewhere in the distance outside. When I come back from Palestine, I probably will have nightmares and constantly feel guilty for not being here, but I can channel that into more work. Coming here is one of the better things I’ve ever done. So when I sound crazy, or if the Israeli military should break with their racist tendency not to injure white people, please pin the reason squarely on the fact that I am in the midst of a genocide which I am also indirectly supporting, and for which my government is largely responsible.

And if this is what it means to be a Christian, and I believe it does, to speak in the voice of Jeremiah Wright, Edward Said or Rachel Corrie, to remember and take upon us the pain and injustice of others, then name me a Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ.

And what of the long line of Jewish prophets that run from Jeremiah, Isaiah and Amos to Hannah Arendt, who reminded the world when the state of Israel was founded that the injustice meted out to the Jews could not be rectified by an injustice meted out to the Palestinians, what of our own prophets, Noam Chomsky or Norman Finkelstein  , outcasts like all prophets, what of Uri Avnery   or the Israeli poet Aharon Shabtai, who writes in his poem “Rypin,” the Polish town his father escaped from during the Holocaust, these words:

These creatures in helmets and khakis,
I say to myself, aren’t Jews,
In the truest sense of the word. A Jew
Doesn’t dress himself up with weapons like jewelry,
Doesn’t believe in the barrel of a gun aimed at a target,
But in the thumb of the child who was shot at—
In the house through which he comes and goes,
Not in the charge that blows it apart.
The coarse soul and iron first
He scorns by nature.
He lifts his eyes not to the officer, or the soldier
With his finger on the trigger—but to justice,
And he cries out for compassion.
Therefore, he won’t steal land from its people
And will not starve them in camps.
The voice calling for expulsion
Is heard from the hoarse throat of the oppressor—
A sure sign that the Jew has entered a foreign country
And, like Umberto Saba  , gone into hiding within his own city.
Because of voices like these, father
At age sixteen, with your family, you fled Rypin;
Now here Rypin is your son.

And if to be Jew means this, and I believe it does, name me a Jew. Name us all Muslims and Christians and Jews. Name us as human beings who believe that when one of us suffers all of us suffer, that we never have to ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for us all, that the tears of the mother in Gaza are our tears, that the wails of the bloodied children in Al Shifa Hospital are the wails of our own children.
Let me close tonight with one last name. Let me name those who send these tanks and fighter jets to bomb the concrete hovels in Gaza with families crouching, helpless, inside, let me name those who deny children the right to a childhood and the sick a right to care, those who torture, those who carry out assassinations in hotel rooms in Dubai and on the streets of Gaza City, those who deny the hungry food, the oppressed justice and foul the truth with official propaganda and state lies. Let me call them, not by their honorific titles and positions of power, but by the name they have earned for themselves by draining the blood of the innocent into the sands of Gaza. Let me name them for who they are: terrorists.
Copyright © 2010 Truthdig, L.L.C.
Chris Hedges writes a regular column for Truthdig.com  . Hedges graduated from Harvard Divinity School and was for nearly two decades a foreign correspondent for The New York Times. He is the author of many books, including: War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning  , What Every Person Should Know About War , and American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America.    His most recent book is Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle  .

__._,_.___

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic

Friday, August 13, 2010

Robert Gibbs and Drug Testing

Hearing Evil

When Robert Gibbs uttered words to the effect that anyone who thinks that Obama is continuing Bush should be drug tested, I snapped right into action.

“Yes, that’s it,” I thought. Perhaps it was drugs that were needed. Someone was on drugs, somewhere, and I was going to test for it.

    So, immediately, I tested all over. I tested my cabinet drawers first, looking all over.   Nothing.

    Being a loyal American, I continued. Under the mattress: nothing. No weed, ludes, opiates, nothing. Besides, this was something that called for uppers.

    Why? Robert Gibbs is obviously projecting, a bit paranoid. Crack, Powdered, Amphetemines, even Meth. Ah ha! I searched the bookcases, the slots behind the books. Nothing. The only thing available was at the bottom of the speed spectrum -- caffene. Not sufficient to get into the right frame of mind, but I still drank some coffee.

    It did not help. I still thought that Obama was going down the same path as Bush. The major problem was that Obama was intelligent and knowledgable and Bush was not. It turns out that this was not enough to mean an improvement. Quite the contrary.

    Obama, as is developed in the transcript below, is actually normalizing or legalizing what Bush had done, only Bush was violating socially and internationally accepted norms. With Obama, we have an example of what can most precisely be described as die bindinde Kraft kritiserbarer Geltungansprüche or as, mentioned above, an institutionalization and legalization of deviant and internationally illegal activity.

    Many of Bush's violation of established 4th Amendment protections, for example, have been absorbed into the legal code. Guantanamo remains open and tribunals are being executed and prisoners sentenced. The most obvious example is the prosecution of the acts of a 15 year old who is now about 23, having spent eight years, or a third of his life, in a prison, subject to torture. In violation of the 5th Ammendment, evidence obtained as a result of torture is admitted against him. The fact that such 'confession' was made without the presence of a lawyer brings the 6th Amendment into play. But then, a war's a war!

    Healthcare is another issue. Obama never promised a Canadian style system, but he did promise the re-import of medicines from Canada and a public option. If he had started with a single-payer proposal, perhaps something non-Bush would have been instituted.

    Well, as I freely confessed, I was unable to find the drugs needed to agree with Gibbs, so I am sure my reasoning is flawed somehow.

    Furthermore, I can not agree that Gibbs should be fired. That would be analogous to firing the mailman for bringing you a bill. The key is finding out who was behind the bill being sent, and I would suspect Rahm Israel Emmanuel and perhaps David Axelrod, perhaps also Timothy Geithner, but primarilly Barack himself as guilty.

    In many ways, then, he is worse than Bush simply because he has a better facility with instrumental reasoning.

    Here is the transcript:

Rush Transcript

This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, More...

Rush Transcript

Monday, August 09, 2010

ADL Blows it Big Time

This is about as mainstream a character as our media can imagine. Now he does have a few problems such as he is intelligent (strike one), knowledgable (strike two), and fairly honest (strike three)! However, when such organizations as the ADL start loosing support like that, they are really showing their problems.

I must say that I thought that building a community-center/Mosque at that location was not worth the effort as a religious place should be a place for peace and reflection and the morons in a place like New York would never let it in peace, but since they did decide to go ahead with it, let them.

Newsweek

Build the Ground Zero Mosque

I believe we should promote Muslim moderates right here in America. And why I'm returning an award to the ADL.

by Fareed ZakariaAugust 06, 2010

Stephen Chernin / Getty Images

Muslims pray at an Islamic center in Queens, N.Y.

Ever since 9/11, liberals and conservatives have agreed that the lasting solution to the problem of Islamic terror is to prevail in the battle of ideas and to discredit radical Islam, the ideology that motivates young men to kill and be killed. Victory in the war on terror will be won when a moderate, mainstream version of Islam—one that is compatible with modernity—fully triumphs over the world view of Osama bin Laden.

As the conservative Middle Eastern expert Daniel Pipes put it, “The U.S. role [in this struggle] is less to offer its own views than to help those Muslims with compatible views, especially on such issues as relations with non-Muslims, modernization, and the rights of women and minorities.” To that end, early in its tenure the Bush administration began a serious effort to seek out and support moderate Islam. Since then, Washington has funded mosques, schools, institutes, and community centers that are trying to modernize Islam around the world. Except, apparently, in New York City.

The debate over whether an Islamic center should be built a few blocks from the World Trade Center has ignored a fundamental point. If there is going to be a reformist movement in Islam, it is going to emerge from places like the proposed institute. We should be encouraging groups like the one behind this project, not demonizing them. Were this mosque being built in a foreign city, chances are that the U.S. government would be funding it.

Timothy A. Clary / AFP-Getty Images
Mosques in America: Faith and Anger
Mosques in America: Faith and Anger

The man spearheading the center, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, is a moderate Muslim clergyman. He has said one or two things about American foreign policy that strike me as overly critical —but it’s stuff you could read on The Huffington Post any day. On Islam, his main subject, Rauf’s views are clear: he routinely denounces all terrorism—as he did again last week, publicly. He speaks of the need for Muslims to live peacefully with all other religions. He emphasizes the commonalities among all faiths. He advocates equal rights for women, and argues against laws that in any way punish non-Muslims. His last book, What’s Right With Islam Is What’s Right With America, argues that the United States is actually the ideal Islamic society because it encourages diversity and promotes freedom for individuals and for all religions. His vision of Islam is bin Laden’s nightmare.

Rauf often makes his arguments using interpretations of the Quran and other texts. Now, I am not a religious person, and this method strikes me as convoluted and Jesuitical. But for the vast majority of believing Muslims, only an argument that is compatible with their faith is going to sway them. The Somali-born “ex-Muslim” writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s advice to Muslims is to convert to Christianity. That may create buzz, but it is unlikely to have any effect on the 1.2 billion devout Muslims in the world.

The much larger issue that this center raises is, of course, of freedom of religion in America. Much has been written about this, and I would only urge people to read Michael Bloomberg’s speech on the subject last week. Bloomberg’s eloquent, brave, and carefully reasoned address should become required reading in every civics classroom in America. It probably will.

Bloomberg’s speech stands in stark contrast to the bizarre decision of the Anti-Defamation League to publicly side with those urging that the center be moved. The ADL’s mission statement says it seeks “to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens.” But Abraham Foxman, the head of the ADL, explained that we must all respect the feelings of the 9/11 families, even if they are prejudiced feelings. “Their anguish entitles them to positions that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted,” he said. First, the 9/11 families have mixed views on this mosque. There were, after all, dozens of Muslims killed at the World Trade Center. Do their feelings count? But more important, does Foxman believe that bigotry is OK if people think they’re victims? Does the anguish of Palestinians, then, entitle them to be anti-Semitic?

Five years ago, the ADL honored me with its Hubert H. Humphrey First Amendment Freedoms Prize. I was thrilled to get the award from an organization that I had long admired. But I cannot in good conscience keep it anymore. I have returned both the handsome plaque and the $10,000 honorarium that came with it. I urge the ADL to reverse its decision. Admitting an error is a small price to pay to regain a reputation.

**********************************************

Fareed Zakaria's Letter to the ADL

August 06, 2010

Dear Mr. Foxman,
Five years ago, the ADL honored me with its Hubert Humphrey First Amendment Freedoms Prize. I was delighted and moved to have been chosen for it in good measure because of the high esteem in which I hold the ADL. I have always been impressed by the fact that your mission is broad – “to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens” – and you have interpreted it broadly over the decades. You have fought discrimination against all religions, races, and creeds and have built a well-deserved reputation.

That is why I was stunned at your decision to publicly side with those urging the relocation of the planned Islamic center in lower Manhattan. You are choosing to use your immense prestige to take a side that is utterly opposed to the animating purpose of your organization. Your own statements subsequently, asserting that we must honor the feelings of victims even if irrational or bigoted, made matters worse.
This is not the place to debate the press release or your statements. Many have done this and I have written about it in Newsweek and on my television show – both of which will be out over the weekend. The purpose of this letter is more straightforward. I cannot in good conscience hold onto the award or the honorarium that came with it and am returning both. I hope that it might add to the many voices that have urged you to reconsider and reverse your position on this issue. This decision will haunt the ADL for years if not decades to come. Whether or not the center is built, what is at stake here is the integrity of the ADL and its fidelity to its mission. Admitting an error is a small price to pay to regain your reputation.

Friday, August 06, 2010

Our Readers Pitch in and Some Remarks About 'Framing'

Framing is a term used in Clinical Psychology or Counseling to describe the process of making the issue more clear, or of delimiting its boundaries. In Amerikan political discourse, the terms "Left-Wing" and "Right Wing" are used, but are limited to the space between Mitch McConnell and Russ Feingold, for example. Actually, the real range is much wider, but by limiting it to that, we don't have to challenge our basic assumptions. Imagine if Fidel Castro were considered "somewhat leftist," for example. That would put Russ in the center of the politcal spectrum.

The same hold true when discussing Gaza, among other Mideast topics. Some may think that we have been a bit extreme on the "Pro-Palestinian" side, but this is hardly true. We are merely trying to convey a sense of reality (I know, "Reality is a crutch"), and some therefore think it is anti-semetic. Actually, someone like Noam Chomsky or Norm Finklestein represent the same reality, but since they are Jewish, they can't be anti-Semetic. (Forget the reality that the Arabs are semetic.) They thus become "self-hating Jews," although I have seen nothing of self-hatred on their parts. What I see is projection.

If you care to see a more vigorous anti-Israeli site, try this: http://israelghost.wordpress.com/

Obviously, we are middle-of-the-road.

At any rate, awhile ago, one of our contributers sent an Israeli flag and the following commentary came back. However, at the same time, the artist had revised his version of the flag (after telling me several times that is what done, but he is an artist, after all). So, here is the revised flag followed by the reaction:

Charlie,

In my personal opinion, this is a bit over the top.

You seem to be looking at the world in very stark, black and white, terms, missing the nuance, the shades of gray.

Certainly, the actions of Israel's government should be condemned. The occupation is illegal and awful. The ongoing attacks, the settlements, the land and water grabs, the wall, the check points are all intolerable. We need to call criminality what it is, when we see it.

However, the crimes of the Israelis do not begin to touch the atrocities of the Nazis, who rounded up and murdered many millions of people. There's a huge difference between mass murder and an aggressive, expansionist settlement agenda. Both are terribly wrong. But it's a huge mistake to equate them.

It also is discrediting, in the eyes of most people, to make such an obviously erroneous equation, and thus, in my opinion, does a disservice to the cause of justice for the Palestinians.

I should also mention that, in my opinion, the crimes of the Israelis, as bad as they are, don't even begin to approach the U.S. and British war crimes of WWII. As I'm sure you know, our government ordered the fire-bombing of cities in Germany and Japan, killing a hundred thousand people or more (non-combatant civilians) in a single night. And then they launched the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing hundreds of thousands more. Our government was also responsible for the free-fire zones and chemical warfare in Indochina that resulted in the deaths of upwards of three million. If you were going to superimpose a swastika over any national symbol, it would seem to me that the stars and stripes would be a closer fit, but I would not advocate this either.

I do think that as citizens of an ostensible democracy we should be raising more of a ruckus over the illegal wars our own government has launched, as well as continuing to challenge the illegal actions of Israel. We should do the latter, I believe, in the context of working for a just settlement of the conflict, but that would need to be the subject of a whole 'nother letter.

In solidarity, for peace and justice,

Mark Haim

***************************************************

Mark is a very active and sincere advocate of justice and peace, I might add.

*********************************************************

A short time later, another reader sent a copy of this protest to a television personality at KQED in San Francisco.

Dear Michael,

I was listening to your Forum interview of Victor Davis Hanson this evening, sadly too late to phone in
and comment. A Hoover senior fellow is he? And a strong supporter of George W. Bush's mideast policies?
Why on earth would you have such a person on your show Michael?

He described Israel as a 'democratic humane nation'. Is he joking? What, with an open air concentration camp
called Gaza holding 1.6 million trapped humans unable to even receive outside aid for the most part? I can imagine being
a tourist in Tel Aviv, but being told to stay away from Israel's occupied territories, that is, places where land and ownership has
been taken away from those conquered by war.

How long has this suffering been going on, remember the Refuseniks of the 1970's? Refuseniks are still being generated by Israeli conscription.
I invite you to peruse this website http://www.menassat.com/?q=en/news-articles/5501-shministim. "Shministim" is what conscientious
objectors refusing to hold guns on Palestinians in the occupied territories are called.

Michael, are you suffering from occluded objectivity? Or is the corporate and private sponsorship of KQED forcing you
to choose right wing guests who support the coming war with Iran and Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories?

I am a 67 year old retired professor who is sickened by our unconditional support of Israel and its atrocities, as is obvious, you will say.
We are forced by pressures I cannot fully imagine to never criticize Israel no matter how heinous its crimes, from a Gaza massacre to a
flotilla ambush.

I have always held you in high esteem Michael, you seem to be a good, fair, open and very intelligent man. How can you go on serving such
masters as those who control KQED? Prove me wrong please by having someone like John Pilger on your show.

Thank you,

Sincerely yours,

Barry Wright
Gilroy CA

*************************************************************

Frankly, nothing here is tinged by ideology -- most of us are all too educated for that. Serious questioning of the issues has been educated out of us. So, we simply stick to the truth.

Thanks to all our readers for contributing.

Tuesday, August 03, 2010

Assange Responds, Jeremy Scahill is there

There has been for too much idiocy lately to keep up with. One of the latest is to get rid of the 14th Ammendment. Where does this scum come from? Too much inbreeding.

Meanwhile, a number of people with about 30 military medals each, proudly displayed, enough to impress any eleven year old, have been calling for Julian Assange's head. Literally. "He may have the blood of a soldier on his hands," one said. Well, as pointed out below, we are all knee deep in Afghani and Iraqi blood already. "Treason!" People shout, although Assange is not a citizen.

He had quoted Swedish law because that's where the headquarters of Wikileaks is, although one Congressman has him in Iceland. There are calls to bomb the computer with all the information. Now there, even this operation has a backup site. do you think Wikileaks doesn't have machines all over?   Ask Emmanuel Goldstein. (If you have to ask, it doesn't matter.)

Anyway, Amy had him one to respond to the crazyness after first interviewing Jeremy Scahill about all the Blackwater types we are leaving in Iraq (our Embassy there is larger than the Vatican -- the whole Vatican. If you don't know how big that country is, check out Angels and Demons. Jeremy then very graciously stayed while she talked to Assange and helped out.

Here is the interview:

It’s been ten days since the whistleblower website WikiLeaks published the massive archive of classified military records about the war in Afghanistan, but the fallout in Washington and beyond is far from over. Justice Department lawyers are reportedly exploring whether WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange could be charged with violating the Espionage Act of 1917 for publishing the classified Afghan war documents. Meanwhile, investigators in the Army’s criminal division have reportedly questioned two students in Boston about their ties to WikiLeaks and Private First Class Bradley Manning, a leading suspect in the leak. We speak with WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange. [includes rush transcript]

Filed under Wikileaks, Afghanistan

Email to a friend

Help

Printer-friendly version

Purchase DVD/CD
LISTEN
WATCH


Real Video Stream

Real Audio Stream

MP3 Download

More…

Guest:

Julian Assange, founder and editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks

Related stories

    * WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange: "Transparent Government Tends to Produce Just Government"
    * Guardian Editor on Coverage of Afghan War Logs: European Audience "Troubled More...by the Toll this War is Taking on Innocent People"
    * WikiLeaks Founder Says "Evidence of War Crimes" in Afghan War Logs, White House Downplays Leak, Claiming "No Broad New Revelations"
    * The New Pentagon Papers: WikiLeaks Releases 90,000+ Secret Military Documents Painting Devastating Picture of Afghanistan War
    * Andrew Bacevich on Afghanistan War: "The President Lacks the Guts to Get Out"

Rush Transcript
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, More...

AMY GOODMAN: It’s been ten days since the whistleblower website WikiLeaks published the massive archive of classified military records about the war in Afghanistan, the largest leak in US history with some, oh, more than 91,0000 documents released. But the fallout in Washington and beyond is far from over. Justice Department lawyers are reportedly exploring whether WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange could be charged with violating the Espionage Act of 1917 for publishing classified Afghan war documents.

On Thursday, authorities at Newark Liberty International Airport detained and questioned a twenty-seven-year-old WikiLeaks volunteer named Jacob Appelbaum. He was questioned for three hours, had his laptop computer and three cellphones seized. Appelbaum is a US citizen who was arriving at Newark after an international flight.

Meanwhile, investigators in the Army’s criminal division have reportedly questioned two students in Boston about their ties to WikiLeaks and Private First Class Bradley Manning, a leading suspect in the leak. Adrian Lamo, the hacker who turned Manning in, says two students at MIT have admitted to him that they assisted Manning in downloading and distributing the leaked documents.

At a news conference in the Pentagon last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates denounced the leaking of the documents.

      DEFENSE SECRETARY ROBERT GATES: The battlefield consequences of the release of these documents are potentially severe and dangerous for our troops, our allies and Afghan partners, and may well damage our relationships and reputation in that key part of the world. Intelligence sources and methods, as well as military tactics, techniques and procedures, will become known to our adversaries. This department is conducting a thorough, aggressive investigation to determine how this leak occurred, to identify the person or persons responsible, and to assess the content of the information compromised.

AMY GOODMAN: Speaking at the same news conference, Admiral Mike Mullen, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, accused WikiLeaks of having blood on its hands.

      ADM. MIKE MULLEN: Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing, but the truth is, they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family. Disagree with the war all you want, take issue with the policy, challenge me or our ground commanders on the decisions we make to accomplish the mission we’ve been given, but don’t put those who willingly go into harm’s way even further in harm’s way just to satisfy your need to make a point.

AMY GOODMAN: That was the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mike Mullen.

We’re joined on the phone now from Britain by Julian Assange, the editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks. Why don’t you start off by responding to this charge that you have blood on your hands, Julian?

JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, we’ve got to be careful, Amy. Mullen actually was quite crafty in his words. He said "might already have" blood on my hands. But the media has gone and turned that into a concrete definition. There is, as far as we can tell, no incident of that. So it is a speculative charge. Of course, we are treating any possible revelation of the names of innocents seriously. That is why we held back 15,000 of these documents, to review that.

Now, some names may have crept into others and may be unfortunate, may not be. But you must understand that we contacted the White House about that issue and asked for their assistance in vetting to see whether there would be any exposure of innocents and to identify those names accordingly. Of course, we would never accept any other kind of veto, but in relation to that matter, we requested their assistance via the New York Times, who the four media partners involved—us, Der Spiegel, The Guardian and the Times—agreed would be the conduit to the White House so we wouldn’t step on each other’s toes. Now, the White House issued a flat denial that that had ever happened. And we see, however, that in an interview with CBS News, Eric Schmidt, who was our contact for that, quoted from the email that I had relayed to the White House, and that quote is precisely what I had been saying all along and completely contradicts the White House statement.

AMY GOODMAN: Julian Assange, you’re correct that even when Admiral Mike Mullen was on Meet the Press this week and was challenged about the statement about blood on the hands, that he said "could"—you’re right—or "might." But he also pointed out, as Newsweek did, they said that the Taliban has begun to threaten Afghans listed in the document as aiding American troops. What is your response to that?

JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, we have to be careful again. I reviewed the statement of someone that a London paper claimed to be speaking for some part of the Taliban. Remember, the Taliban is actually not a homogenous group. And the statement, as far as such things go, was fairly reasonable, which is that they would not trust these documents; they would use their own intelligence organization’s investigations to understand whether those people were defectors or collaborators, and if so, after their investigations, then they would receive appropriate punishment. Now, of course, that is—you know, that image is disturbing, but that is what happens in war, that spies or traitors are investigated.

Now, these statements, all together, are designed to distract from the big picture. And it’s really quite fantastic that Gates and Mullen, Gates being the former head of the CIA during Iran-Contra and the overseer of Iraq and Afghanistan, and Mullen being the military commander for Iraq and Afghanistan—I’m not sure what his further background is—who have ordered assassinations every day, are trying to bring people on board to look at a speculative understanding of whether we might have blood on our hands. These two men arguably are wading in the blood from those wars. According to the statistics we pulled out of the Afghan War Diary, those reports covering six years, we see in the internal reporting itself, just of the regular US Army and not the top-secret operations, that 20,000 people have been killed. And similarly, we know from Iraq Body Count that there’s 108,000 people, where there’s media reports and other evidence to show, that have died in Iraq. The hypocrisy in these statements is extraordinary.

AMY GOODMAN: Julian, Marc Thiessen, the former chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, wrote a column in Tuesday’s Washington Post calling WikiLeaks a "criminal enterprise." He went on to write—let me quote—"Assange is a non-U.S. citizen operating outside the territory of the United States. This means the government has a wide range of options for dealing with him. It can employ not only law enforcement but also intelligence and military assets to bring Assange to justice and put his criminal syndicate out of business. The first step is for the Justice Department to indict Assange." Again, these are the words of Marc Thiessen, who is the former speechwriter for George W. Bush, writing in Washington Post.

JULIAN ASSANGE: Yeah, extraordinary. But I see, we can guess, what perhaps would have happened to this organization under Bush. But we should have some concerns in that Obama has authorized the assassination of US citizens overseas. And what will happen? Will that be—we’ll see some statement leading to that sort of behavior. It appears that this administration is not above that. I see this a bit as a floating balloon that Thiessen has put up. Of course, he is no doubt doing it in order to show that he’s at the vanguard of that school of thought. And it will be seen whether that balloon gets shot down or not by the American people. And if it doesn’t get shot down by criticism, then it will be assumed that that behavior is in some way acceptable. Now, in Europe, it’s another matter. What Thiessen is saying is that US forces would enter European territory without—illegally and conduct an illegal act, like they did in Italy, kidnapping some al-Qaeda. But disturbing to me is to see these references to deal with journalists that were previously done to al-Qaeda.

AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask you about Jacob Appelbaum, a volunteer for WikiLeaks who was held at Newark Airport, when he came in, for a number of hours, detained and questioned. Can you explain what happened to him, what you understand happen to him?

JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, my understanding—and I haven’t spoken to Jacob, however; you know, this is sort of third-hand reports—is that, yes, he was detained after coming back from—let’s start it from the beginning. So, Jacob filled in for me at a talk in New York City. And at that talk, some six Homeland Security persons arrived, and Jacob left and then came to Europe briefly. And on his return, he was detained at the airport and asked questions for some three-and-a-half hours. He was not permitted to call a lawyer or make, indeed, any phone call at all. His three phones were seized, and his laptop briefly seized. The phones have not been returned. And he was asked questions about his political views on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

AMY GOODMAN: He was asked about where you are.

JULIAN ASSANGE: Yes, I’ve heard that report, as well. My understanding is that he did not comply with those sorts of requests.

AMY GOODMAN: He was also approached afterwards at a Defcon conference where he was speaking about the Tor Project. What is the Tor Project?

JULIAN ASSANGE: So, the Tor—I have some interference here on the line. The Tor—the Tor Project is—I’m sorry, Amy, the interference here is too bad. Can you perhaps call back, as I cross in from something else?

AMY GOODMAN: Julian, we’re going to go to an early break. Then we’re going to come back to you. We’re going to fix this line. Julian Assange is the founder and editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks. When we get back to him, I want to ask him about Mike Rogers, the Alabama Congress member, who says that Bradley Manning, who—should be tried for releasing documents to WikiLeaks, the Afghan war documents, and, if found guilty, should face death for treason. We’re speaking with Julian Assange. We’ll be back with him, after we clear up the interference, in a minute.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: We’re speaking with Julian Assange. I’m Amy Goodman. Julian Assange is the editor-in-chief and founder of WikiLeaks.

Julian, are you there? We’re just trying to fix the phone line.

JULIAN ASSANGE: Yes. It seems good now, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s better.

Let me ask you about Congressman Mike Rogers from Alabama, who said "the alleged release by a soldier of documents relating to the war in Afghanistan to "http://www.wikileaks.org">WikiLeaks.org constitutes treason and should be considered a capital offense." I’m reading from the Daily Press & Argus in Alabama. He hasn’t been charged for the release of these documents. He’s been charged with the release of other documents, though he’s been called a person of interest in this. But what is your response to Congressman Mike Rogers?

JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, you start to understand that Congressman Mike Rogers is part of the Senate Intelligence Committee, so this is an individual who is meant to be—

AMY GOODMAN: House. The House Intelligence Committee.

JULIAN ASSANGE: Sorry, sorry. Yes, the House Intelligence Committee. So this is an individual who is meant to be overseeing the intelligence Industry in the United States. So that’s the sort of first takeaway, is that this, like, war hawk is meant to be overseeing and holding to account behavior of those involved in war.

His call for execution, well, it’s not only legally wrong—Congress has not declared war, so that option, as I understand, is not available to him. Also, for an execution to occur, the President must, or authority of the President must, authorize it. Now, that doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen. If the political will in the United States doesn’t shoot down these floating balloons that Rogers and Thiessen are putting up, then we could see a shift towards finding that behavior or similar behavior acceptable. People have to shoot those statements down; otherwise, they will become the new norm.

AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask you about something that Declan McCullagh has written on CNET. He said, "Perhaps as a way to avoid additional legal pressure or [extrajudicial] punitive measures on Assange and Appelbaum, a few days ago Wikileaks posted an intriguing 1.4GB file simply titled 'Insurance.' It’s encrypted, meaning that if visitors are sent it in advance, Wikileaks would have to release only the key or passphrase to allow the contents to be read." Can you explain what this file is, Julian Assange?

JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, I think it’s better that we don’t comment on that. But, you know, one could imagine in a similar situation that it might be worth ensuring that important parts of history do not disappear.

AMY GOODMAN: And just to clarify, you have released more than 91,000 documents. You say you’re withholding 15,000. Does that mean you have released 76,000, or 15,000 in addition you are withholding?

JULIAN ASSANGE: Yeah, we have released 76,000, and we have 15,000 in addition that our staff are working through to make sure that informers are not named. This particular collection is from a—it’s labeled in such a way that would tend to imply that there may be innocent informers in there. There’s certainly many of inordinacies. That’s an important thing to understand, that many of these informers are using special forces and other parts of the military to conduct vendettas against their political or business opponents. Others are taking bribes and framing people by coming up with outlandish allegations.

It’s really quite difficult to work our way through this. What do we do in the case of a governor, as an example, that has been taking bribes from the United States military? Do we—and collaborating with them, as a result. Is that something that is of genuine interest to the people of Afghanistan? Well, of course, it is, if the governor is cooperating with a foreign occupying power as a result of him taking money. So these things are quite difficult and time-consuming to work out. And that’s one of the reasons that we ask the White House and the like to ask ISAF, the International Security Assistance Force, to help us with the labor of going through this. We are a relatively small organization, and the labor costs and getting through this material are very demanding, as every day that the important stories are not released is another day that justice for those people that have been killed is denied.

AMY GOODMAN: Julian Assange, Glenn Greenwald and others have written about Project Vigilant. He writes, "Vigilant, an alliance of some 600 volunteers, has been scouring internet traffic for 14 years and passing [the] information to the US federal authorities, said its director, Chet Uber. [...] He said the Florida-based group [has] encouraged one of its members, Adrian Lamo, to inform the authorities about Bradley Manning, the former intelligence analyst who allegedly provided the Wikileaks site with classified military information. [...] Mr Uber said [Mr] Lamo had been reluctant to expose his friend so the Vigilant chief arranged for him to meet federal agencies. [...] Its members reportedly include the [ex-]security chief for the New York Stock Exchange and former technology officials at the National Security Agency and the FBI." Can you talk about Project Vigilant?

JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, it’s an interesting trend that we’re seeing. You know, when the Pentagon Papers came out, really, most of the impact, at least as far as I can see, wasn’t from the content of the material; rather, it’s—the back reaction against the Pentagon Papers exposed something else. It exposed the inner workings and thoughts of the Nixon administration. And we are starting to see something like that happening in this case, that the—if you like, the crackdown and the attempt at covering up is revealing some of the inner workings of the security sector and the Obama administration, the United States. And Project Vigilant is an example of that.

So, one of the—the informer in this case, a sort of researcher for Wired magazine by the name of Adrian Lamo, who’s alleged to have shopped or ratted out Mr. Manning to the FBI, apparently was involved with this military contractor that had a program to engage in mass spying. The head of that—on US soil. The head of that organization says that they seen 250 million IP addresses daily with software that’s installed in some 600 locations around the United States. So this seems to be a, if you like, a privatized version of the National Security Agency, perhaps giving the government a bit more freedom.

Now, we do—we don’t—we have some public record in relation to Project Viligant. The rest of the statements are coming from this man who’s the CEO. His interest in speaking about this publicly needs to be understood. He seems to be wanting to drum up more people in various ISPs and other organizations to install this spy software on—either for ideological reasons or for promise of payment. And it’s a disturbing trend to see that indirection into a private company for spying. And he says that—he speaks quite carefully and says that the spying that’s occurring on internet use in the United States through his organization is as a result of a little sort of line in the small print that they get when they sign up, that is not seen, and that small print has been used to collect and spy on these people without breaking the law.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Julian Assange, founder and editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks. By the way, that quote that I read, the piece, wasn’t Glenn Greenwald, though he’s written about it, but Tom Leonard in The Telegraph in London. Project Vigilant press release says the organization tracks more than 250 million IP addresses a day and can develop portfolios on any name, screen name or IP address.

Jeremy Scahill has stayed with us. We were talking to him about President Obama’s speech and the drawdown in Iraq. Jeremy, your comment on what Julian has said?

JEREMY SCAHILL: Well, I mean, I think the attacks that are being put forward by Marc Thiessen, Mike Rogers, even by the Secretary of Defense and the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I mean, the painful, bloody irony of what they’re saying about WikiLeaks and about the individuals that provided these documents to WikiLeaks is that the US is the primary force jeopardizing Afghans every day, Afghan civilians every day. When you read in the documents these assassinations, essentially, of civilians that are taking place, why is there no outrage about that? Why aren’t there courts-martial of the individuals responsible for these massacres? Where are the prosecutions for murder? I mean, Marc Thiessen can write with a straight face about the crimes of Julian Assange and his criminal syndicate, and yet supports the kind of, you know, slaughter that we see happening in these night raids on a regular basis.

The other issue I would raise, when we talk about the sort of rats that Julian is talking about that are trying to hunt down people that are essentially whistleblowers, is that the Washington Post just did this massive series about the private intelligence industry. Hundreds of thousands of private contractors working for for-profit companies are given access to top-secret documents on a daily basis. You know, I think that the Pentagon should be much more concerned about these corporations that are potentially sharing classified information with other clients, be they corporate clients or foreign governments, than they are about, you know, whistleblowers, because the real threat to US national security likely comes from the fact that we’ve given all of these contractors access to this information, while they simultaneously work for other governments and other corporations.

So, I mean, I just—the main point I would say here is that journalists that dwell on this issue of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks endangering Afghan collaborators with the US should spend a little bit of time focusing on who’s been killing Afghan civilians on a regular basis. Yes, forces within the Taliban do it, but so, too, do US military forces. And there’s no accountability for those kinds of killings.

AMY GOODMAN: Julian Assange?

JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, thanks, Jeremy. I see the sort of one positive outcome from these attacks on us, which, of course, are designed to deflect from the 20,000 deaths that we exposed in this material, including thousands of children, is that—

AMY GOODMAN: Can you repeat the number, Julian Assange, of numbers of civilians killed, that you think are—

JULIAN ASSANGE: Yeah, there’s around 20,000 in this material. Because the information is sort of well structured, you can get a computer program to just add it all up. And so, there are around 20,000 individuals. Accounts of 20,000 deaths are in this material. And, you know, the Afghan government has complained that last week there was a NATO attack that killed fifty-two. So, it really is quite extraordinary that the press is—that some parts of the press are concentrating on some hypothetical threat to some people.

I mean, when the London Times sort of issued like—was the first to push on this. It’s a rival to The Guardian, that had fourteen pages reprinted. And the example that they raised was that someone, who turned out had been dead for two years, that we were alleged to have killed—if you actually read the headline, the named man was already dead, but constructed in such a way that it looked like we had done it. But, in fact, the US military or something else had killed this man. To use against—

So the beneficial thing I see coming out of this is, well, we finally have statements from Mullen and Gates, that they have concern for Afghan civilians in this process. Now, of course, it would be nice to see that actually translate into something on the ground. We have to look at the garden itself.

I mean, this material was available to everyone, as far as I can see, on SIPRNet, which is the secret network, which is not a high classification. It’s just a low- to medium-level classification, so available to hundreds of thousands or millions of individuals, and included Afghan informants’ and collaborators’ names. That is not how, for example, we do things. We always use code names. We never keep those names. And the US has simply shown contempt for these Afghans. They never really cared about them at all—and that’s why it didn’t help us to try and go through this enormous quantity of material to find these names-–and never engaged in correct security procedures to protect its sources in the first place, because they didn’t give a damn about them.

AMY GOODMAN: Lynne Cheney, the daughter of Dick Cheney, went on Fox and said, "I’d really like to see President Obama move to ask the government of Iceland to shut the website down. I’d like to see him move to shut it down ourselves if Iceland won’t do it.” Julian?

JULIAN ASSANGE: Yeah, a source of great delight in Iceland, actually—that statement, I mean. She is a not terribly liked individual. Well, I shouldn’t say that, actually. Her father is a not well liked individual. And she seems to share the same politics and patronage, networking, their extended friends and so on. So, the Icelandic people are fierce and fiercely independent, and I’m sure they’re not going to be cowered by Liz Cheney.

AMY GOODMAN: Right, that was Liz Cheney, Cheney’s daughter. How are you protecting yourself at this point, Julian Assange?

JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, I would like to tell you all about it, Amy, but, you know, that might not be wise. However, there are countries, Western countries, even countries in NATO, that are strongly supportive of what we do politically. And, for example, the UK has announced—UK Parliament has announced two inquiries into Afghanistan, one on the civilian casualties and the other on what is the exit strategy and how to get out of it. The Dutch government just formally announced its exit from Afghanistan. And other governments around the world involved in the ISAF coalition have, in bigger and small ways, announced that they are trying to do something about the revelations in this material.

And all of them are taking note of what the United States’ attitude is, which is, instead of immediately saying these relevations are a serious concern, we never wanted to harm Afghan civilians or to bribe the media, as an example of one of the revelations in there, and we intend to launch an immediate investigation to understand this and compensate those people accordingly and change our procedures—that’s what the rest of the world wants to hear. That’s what Afghanistan, the people of Afghanistan want to hear. But instead they heard a personal attack on me and on our organization and an announcement that they would be going after the whistleblower or whistleblowers involved in this. And now we see them living up to those words and stalking around Boston, spying and harassing MIT graduates, and trunking around the United Kingdom, where they raided Manning, the alleged whistleblower, for a video release called "Collateral Murder," in her home in Wales.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Julian Assange, we’re going to leave it there, founder and editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, speaking to us from abroad. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, the War and Peace Report. And on that issue of "Collateral Murder," what WikiLeaks called the video of July 12th, 2007, of a military, US military Apache attack on residents of Baghdad, two Reuters employees killed in that, you can go to our website, democracynow.org, to see the discussion and the video.

Printer-friendly version

Email to a friend

Creative Commons License The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to "democracynow.org". Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

The Absurd Times

Saturday, August 14, 2010

Brilliant Speech on Gaza

Friday, August 13, 2010

Robert Gibbs and Drug Testing

Rush Transcript

Related Links

Rush Transcript

Related Links

Monday, August 09, 2010

ADL Blows it Big Time

Build the Ground Zero Mosque

I believe we should promote Muslim moderates right here in America. And why I'm returning an award to the ADL.

Fareed Zakaria's Letter to the ADL

Friday, August 06, 2010

Our Readers Pitch in and Some Remarks About 'Framing'

Tuesday, August 03, 2010

Assange Responds, Jeremy Scahill is there

Sunday, August 01, 2010

RAP NEWS: Wikileaks vs The Pentagon - INTERNET WARS

Twitter

Translate

Labels

Popular Posts

fb

The Absurd Times

https://open.substack.com/pub/absurdtimes1c2/p/free-sign-up?r=q3o1q&am

Saturday, August 14, 2010

Brilliant Speech on Gaza

Friday, August 13, 2010

Robert Gibbs and Drug Testing

Rush Transcript

Related Links

Rush Transcript

Related Links

Monday, August 09, 2010

ADL Blows it Big Time

Fareed Zakaria's Letter to the ADL

Friday, August 06, 2010

Our Readers Pitch in and Some Remarks About 'Framing'

Tuesday, August 03, 2010

Assange Responds, Jeremy Scahill is there

Sunday, August 01, 2010

RAP NEWS: Wikileaks vs The Pentagon - INTERNET WARS

Twitter

Translate

Labels

Popular Posts

fb