Unclear Holocaust: From the Anti-Banality Union

From the Anti-Banality Union [ABU]:

UNCLEAR HOLOCAUST (2011)
Detourned by The Anti-Banality Union. 65 mins. U.SS.A.
Amerikan with some Arabic.

Unclear Holocaust is a feature-length autopsy of Hollywood’s New York-destruction fantasy, gleaned from over fifty major studio event-movies and detourned into one relentless orgy of representational genocide. It is the unrivaled assembly of the greatest amount of capital and private property heretofore captured in one frame, that, with unfathomable narrative efficacy, suicides itself in an annihilatory flux of fire, water, and aeronautics.

“A Terrorist film collective hijacks the U.S. propaganda apparatus and detonates it over New York. Everything is obliterated and the world celebrates. Through fifty studio event-movies abstracted of all demokratic variation, we see the Cinema as it really is; an unequivocal annihilation, the auto-genocidal mass fantasy of a megalomaniacally depressed First World. Every screen is lifted and bares the obscene underside of all these images. Movements of character and narrative burst into pure and mechanically perfect propulsions of a psychotic camera from which all this violence emanates. The Mise-En-Scene becomes an inventory of the dominant visual-auditory arsenal, enumerating and measuring the power of every weapon available to the Spectacle. Utilizing them all with paradigmatic rigor, the Hollywood-Military complex launches an endless pre-emptive attack on its own shadow, the Terrorist. And, as in all encounters between doubles, the former ends up joyously suiciding itself.” -A.B.U. Communique #1

“When I first heard of Unclear Holocaust, the debut project of nebulous situationist art collective The Anti-Banality Union, my initial impression was that these impious troublemakers would fully deserve the inevitable fatwa that will be vexed upon them. However, after viewing part of the work, which reconstitutes scenes from over 50 Hollywood New York City disaster porn films into a more or less coherent narrative, I am pleased to report it is a rather damning yet thoughtful–and dare I say hilarious and enjoyable?–reminder of how bad Hollywood had pushed this scenario. (In cinematic terms, what is 9/11, after all, other than all three* Die Hard movies–exploding tower, exploding airplane, exploding New York City–rolled into one?) “The Spectacle of Terrorism forces the Terrorism of Spectacle upon us…” the ABU wrote me in this mysterious, Frankfurt School-inspired communique. I’m reminded of the remarks Guardian critic Peter Bradshaw shared on 9/11 the other day:

‘Perhaps the whole point of 9/11 was that it could never be represented on the cinema screen. The diabolic, situationist genius of the kamikaze attacks was that they were themselves a kind of counter-cinema, a spectacle very possibly inspired by the art-form, but rendering obsolete any comparable fictions it had to offer. The 9/11 attacks smashed Hollywood’s monopoly on myth-making and image production, and inspiring as they did only horror and revenge, aimed a devastating blow at imagination, and maybe for a while enfeebled the reputation of cinema and all the arts.’

Thankfully for the ABU, Hollywood pulled its shit together and made Nicolas Cage apocalypse thriller Knowing, providing Unclear Holocaust about half its runtime.” -ScreenSlate.com

-?!

p.s. Expect ‘Police Mortality’.

‘James Steele: America’s mystery man in Iraq’

A stunning documentary from The Guardian about the secret presence behind reigns of violence in Latin America and Iraq:

The program notes:

A 15-month investigation by the Guardian and BBC Arabic reveals how retired US colonel James Steele, a veteran of American proxy wars in El Salvador and Nicaragua, played a key role in training and overseeing US-funded special police commandos who ran a network of torture centres in Iraq. Another special forces veteran, Colonel James Coffman, worked with Steele and reported directly to General David Petraeus, who had been sent into Iraq to organise the Iraqi security services.

Chart of the day: Cruisin’ for a bruisin’

Seizing oil, suppressing those who violently resist, and towing the Israeli line on nukes — that’s not just the American foreign policy line. It’s also the sentiment of most Americans, with that oft-cited “building democracy abroad” bit getting the short shrift.

The latest sad numbers from Gallup:

Chart of the day: Droning on, unwinning friends

From Gallup, graphic evidence that Obama’s imperial killing machines aren’t winning friends, but they sure as hell are influencing people:

A video excursion: The Wobblies

A 1979 documentary directed by Stewart Bird and Deborah Shaffer features a remarkable series of interviews with veterans of the IWW, the Industrial Workers of the World — a remarkable and brutally suppressed effort to create a new form of union.

What’s especially delightful is the youthful, enduring spirit that shines through the aging faces and resonates through their voices as they recall their participation in a movement that had given them a vision of a brighter, more harmonious future:.

And note also that the movement was destroyed in an early 20th Century version of the war on terror in which the activists were portrayed as slaves of an alien ideology deserving of the application of extrajudicial military force and none of the constitutional rights that would apply did crisis not prevail.

The full DVD is available here.

And the IWW’s still here.

From Wikipedia.

Breaking the Set: Indefinite detention challenged

Another solid Breaking the Set episode from RT’s Abby Martin:

From RT:

EPISODE BREAKDOWN: On this episode of Breaking the Set, Abby Martin takes an in depth look at the lawsuit against the National Defense Authorization Act’s indefinite detention clause, starting with a short look at just how many people actually know about it. Abby then talks to one of the plaintiffs spearheading the lawsuit, Tangerine Bolen, about how the suit came to be, and why the corporate media has not picked up the story, Abby also talks to former whistleblower, Jesselyn Radack, about the extent and reach of the NDAA as it applies to journalists, activists and whistleblowers. BTS wraps up the show with an interview with journalist, author and lead plaintiff in the case against indefinite detention, Chris Hedges, about the historical precedent the NDAA lawsuit sets, and why every American should care.

Quote of the day: Barry O, imperial president

Philadelphia Daily News scribe Will Bunch, writing at his blog, Attytood:

Obama’s expanded, top-secret drone war has allowed the U.S. to kill high-level members of al-Qaeda without the risks that ground troops have faced in Iraq or Afghanistan, where U.S. troops have been fighting more than 11 years.

But in doing so, a president who promised “the most open and transparent administration in history” has gone to Nixonian lengths to hide its actions from the American people and from Congress. He’s ordered missile attacks on countries such as Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia with which the nation is not at war – drone strikes that in addition to its targets have killed as many as 1,000 innocent civilians, including women and children.

And according to a White House white paper obtained by NBC News, Obama has claimed a power never even envisioned during the waterboarding-drenched years of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney – the ability to order the assassination of an American citizen believed to be engaged with al-Qaeda at a high level, even if that citizen is not currently plotting against the U.S.

Quote of the day: Colonial war, rotten rationale

From Veteran BBC documentarian Adam Curtiss, writing in his blog, The Medium and the Message:

The West is worried about the rise of Islamism in Africa. There are two big fears — one is that there is a new international terror network that will come and attack Europe and America. The other is that sneaky Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood will get themselves elected — and then promptly abolish democracy.

But behind these fears is an incredibly simplified — almost fictional — vision of the world. It possesses the minds of many western politicians, journalists and associated think tank “experts”. And at its heart is a kind of filter that wipes away anything complex about power and the struggles for power in African countries — and replaces that with a simple picture of the world as divided between goodies (us in the west) and dangerous frightening baddies who are out to destroy us.

It’s both blind and arrogant. And it’s terribly dangerous.

Curtis also features a clip from a documentary about the U.S. intervention in Somalia under Bill Clinton, filmed by British journalist Richard Dowden and featuring, from Mogadishu,

“a US marine interviewed on the street who puts it all so clearly:

“the place is filling up with American contractors all bidding to rebuild this joint. That’s all the Defence Department is. We’re bodyguards for American contractors ……………… You should know that – you’ve been to college.”

Juxtapositionalism: First a fact, then a question

Sometimes two items just seem to go together, especially for a blog that’s devoted some attention to AFRICOM and its links to Pentagon plans to exercise military suzerainty over resources in times to crisis.

First, consider the latest move to bolster AFRICOM, the  command spawned by a general who’s since become a private sector agrofuel and security consultant.

From Eric Schmitt of the New York Times:

The United States military is preparing to establish a drone base in northwest Africa so that it can increase surveillance missions on the local affiliate of Al Qaeda and other Islamist extremist groups that American and other Western officials say pose a growing menace to the region.

For now, officials say they envision flying only unarmed surveillance drones from the base, though they have not ruled out conducting missile strikes at some point if the threat worsens.

>snip<

A new drone base in northwest Africa would join a constellation of small airstrips in recent years on the continent, including in Ethiopia, for surveillance missions flown by drones or turboprop planes designed to look like civilian aircraft.

Read the rest.

In light of the above, consider this question from Stephen M. Walt, Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard, in a blog post headlined “Top ten tough questions for Hillary Clinton”:

U.S. military forces are now organized in various regional combatant commands, each under a designated regional “commander-in-chief” or CINC. These regional CINCs have a vast array of military, intelligence, and other assets at their disposal, and the resources they can bring to bear far exceed those of the State Department. For this reason, foreign governments often pay as much or more attention to the CINCs as they do to the U.S. ambassador, for the simple reason that the CinCs can do more for or against them. Here’s my question: if you were an ambitious young person who wanted to make a mark on U.S. foreign policy, why go to a nice four-year college and then join the Foreign Service? Wouldn’t it make more sense to go to West Point, Annapolis, or Colorado Springs and try to become a senior military leader instead?

Quote of the day: Barack Obama, lobotomist

From former Defense Department senior analyst Franklin (Chuck) Spinney, writing in Time:

American politics continues to repeat the practice of buying domestic power by inflicting misery and destruction on third world nations. In my view, Obama’s own contribution to statecraft in this regard has been his ability to lobotomize almost the entire Democratic base. The same people who were screaming about Bush’s illegal wars, unconstitutional surveillance, lack of due process, etc., are now silent or singing Obama’s greatness.

Even when Democrats can see how Mr. Obama has disappointed them, the insanity of Republican politicians provides the Democrats a ready rationale to excuse Obama. (By the way, does anyone notice that if Hagel is confirmed it means two of Obama’s three SecDefs will have been Republicans?)

The Republican party, with a few exceptions, is so visibly crazy that they have become an indispensable foil that permits Obama to govern as he does. The conventional wisdom of liberals is that Obama’s heart is in the right place, but he is conflict averse and therefore must govern as a centrist (really a center-rightist), because the GOP is crazy and intransigent. But in reality, Obama actually is a center-rightist who uses his image as a diffident compromiser as a cloak to hide his pro-corporatocracy given aways.  And because most people prefer center-right governance to out-and-out fascism, the GOP plays an essential role as a “bad cop” to the center-right “good cop,” which is why Democrats went along with  Obama’s plan to enshrine the Bush tax cuts for the bottom 99.3%, and a huge giveaway on the estate tax, in perpetuity. My fear is that, in the same way, Democrats will go along with Obama’s inflated defense budgets and his permanent conflict foreign policy.

Read the rest.

Chart of the day: Satisfaction, American-style

From Gallup, a new poll reveals that we’re happiest with the military and the war on terror:

Keiser Report: Ho, Ho, Freaking Ho!

Max and Stacy bring us a Christmas special, replete with punk poetry, high dudgeon, and existential absurdity. Come for the coat, stay for the laughs:

RT’s program notes:

In this episode, Max Keiser first talks to punk poet John Cooper Clarke about Who Stole Bongo’s Trousers, private equity rock stars, the music business and onesies as the next big thing in fashion. In the second half, Max is joined by Stacy to talk about the ‘poverty barons’ financed by the British taxpayer.

In San Francisco, streetcars, buses spy on you

And it’s the Department of Homeland Security that’s behind the latest invasion of public space — the installation of microphones to capture everything said by passengers on the city’s buses and streetcars.

First. A video report from RT featuring an interview with the reporter who broke the sordid tale:

RT’s program notes:

Government officials are installing high-tech audio surveillance systems in buses across the country. Almost 6 million dollars for over 350 buses and trolleys in San Francisco have been approved for the initiative already and other cities are following suit. So does it mean more safety or less privacy? Michael Brick of the Daily joins RT’s Liz Wahl to explain.

A telling excerpt from Buck’s story for The Daily:

Linked to video cameras already in wide use, the microphones will offer a formidable new tool for security and law enforcement. With the new systems, experts say, transit officials can effectively send an invisible police officer to transcribe the individual conversations of every passenger riding on a public bus.

But the deployment of the technology on buses raises urgent questions about the boundaries of legally protected privacy in public spaces, experts say, as transit officials — and perhaps law enforcement agencies given access to the systems — seem positioned to monitor audio communications without search warrants or court supervision.

>snip<

A spokesman for the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, Paul Rose, declined to comment on the surveillance program. But procurement documents explain the agency’s rationale.

“The purpose of this project is to replace the existing video surveillance systems in SFMTA’s fleet of revenue vehicles with a reliable and technologically advanced system to increase passenger safety and improve reliability and maintainability of the system,” officials wrote in contract documents.

In San Francisco, the Department of Homeland Security is funding the entire cost with a grant. Elsewhere, the federal government is also providing some financial support.

Read the rest.

So much for that myth of the “liberal” San Francisco. . .

Drone Wars: Rise of the Machines – USA

From Journeyman Pictures [You Tube channel here] for Australia’s ABC television network, a disturbing look at the increasingly ubiquitous drones that threaten to to end what little privacy we have left:

From Journeyman Pictures:

Most people see drones as a controversial weapon prowling over foreign battlegrounds. But as America’s military campaigns wind down, these machines are coming home and set to change civilian lives forever.

“This is a powerful technology. No amount of hand-wringing is going to stop it”, says drone expert, Peter Singer. Whether it’s a floating TV station streaming live to the web, the prying lens of the paparazzi, the police chasing a criminal or a government agency spying, small domestic drones are experiencing an exponential growth. At the world’s largest drone convention in Las Vegas a salesman tells the crowd, “this can be used in law enforcement, disaster relief and industrial applications. It’s also very good at dusting floors. Every home owner should have one”. And as the technology advances at a frightening speed, anyone with a few hundred dollars can buy one over the counter. These hobby drones can fly for miles and provide sharp video feedback to the pilot. “I wouldn’t cheat on your wife!”, laughs columnist Charles Krauthammer. But jokes aside, there are real fears over the “political, legal and ethical issues that play out with this”, argues Singer. In 3 years time an order from the US congress will see tens of thousands of drones legally occupy an already crowded sky, raising numerous questions about basic safety, terrorism and civil liberty. As companies rush to cash in on this new billion dollar industry, experts warn, “we’re not ready for this”.

Terrorism ‘fusion centers’ suppress free speech

Today’s America has become a surveillance state on a scale never before seen, with local law enforcement effectively merged with super-secret federal agencies in an unprecedented effort to sniff out the slightest scent of dissent.

One result, as we’ve seen in the San Francisco Bay Area, has been the merger of law enforcement efforts through federally created “fusion centers”  and programs which bring local law enforcement officers [including the University of California campus cops] together with the notoriously brutal Israeli border police to learn how to beat protesters into submission.

Hell, the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department is even getting its own drone, though presumably not equipped with Hellfire missiles.

In that light, consider this report from the American Civil Liberties Union’s Blog of Rights:

When Boston Police Spy on Free Speech, Democracy Suffers

By Nancy Murray, Education Director, ACLU of Massachusetts at 9:51am

Psst! Check out this super-secret Boston Police “intelligence report”:

Local activists have been trying to get ‘celebrity guest speakers’ (Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon) for the March 24th demonstration, but at this time it appears that they have been unable to book any of these speakers for their event.

But some well-known speakers will be there. According to this intelligence report,” compiled by the Boston police under the heading “Criminal Act–Groups-Extremists,” among them will be Cindy Sheehan and a “BU professor emeritus/activist” whose name is redacted–it was the late Howard Zinn.

These excerpts come from one of several documents and videotapes obtained through a lawsuit brought against the Boston Police Department by the ACLU of Massachusetts and Massachusetts Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild. We are making these criminal “intelligence” reports public today, along with a report analyzing its significance–and avideo of some of the peace activists who have been targeted.

We now have proof of what peace groups and activists have long suspected: Boston Police officers have worked within the local fusion spying center, the Boston Regional Intelligence Center (BRIC), to monitor the lawful political activity of local peace groups and track their movements and beliefs. This information has been retained in searchable electronic “intelligence” reports bearing labels such as “Groups – Civil Disturbance,” “Groups–Extremists,” “HomeSec-Domestic” under the heading “Criminal Act.”

Under what interpretation of the US and Massachusetts Constitutions can the non-violent First Amendment activity of groups like Veterans for Peace and United for Justice with Peace be routinely classified as a criminal act?

If you have glanced at the US Senate subcommittee report on fusion centers that came out earlier this month, you may not be surprised to hear that Boston’s fusion center has been collecting dubious “intelligence” and violating civil liberties in the process.

Fusion centers were set up in the aftermath of 9/11 to facilitate the sharing of “terrorism-related” information among local, state, and federal law enforcement and private entities. But the Senate subcommittee report finds that the nation’s 70 or so fusion centers (the exact number is in dispute–DHS, which contributed the seed funding for the centers, doesn’t know how many exist today) have not uncovered a single terrorist plot.

Indeed, the spying centers have produced “nothing of value,” and instead needlessly duplicate the “more efficient information-sharing process already in place between local police and the FBI-led Terrorist Screening Center.”

Their output is often, in the words of one government official, “a bunch of crap.”

Much of it is also “potentially illegal,” according to the US Senate report, because it falls foul of federal privacy regulations and Department of Homeland Security guidelines that forbid the routine monitoring of groups and individuals unless there is reason to suspect them of criminal activity.

The BRIC’s own guidelines say the same thing.

And yet we now know that the BRIC, local and state police and the FBI have worked together to monitor and create “intelligence reports” on groups and individuals where there is no demonstrated link to crime or terrorism. There are indications that these illegal reports have been shared around the country, just how widely we don’t know.

Given the secrecy surrounding the “information-sharing” surveillance systems that have been erected since 9/11 and the lack of any accountability mechanisms, we can’t determine exactly where reports generated by the BRIC end up. Inaccurate information could have found a permanent home in a myriad government–and even private–databases, with harm to lives that can never be repaired.

The documents we received in response to our lawsuit demonstrate that the BRIC cannot effectively police itself.

According to the BRIC’s guidelines, “intelligence reports” that do not reference criminal activity should be destroyed after 90 days. And yet we obtained reports that should never have been written in the first place and were still being retained after five years. Why should it take an ACLU/NLG lawsuit to highlight the BRIC’s failure to enforce its own rules?

We know the political surveillance revealed in these documents wastes scarce tax dollars and police resources that would be better focused on building community trust and solving actual crimes.

And we know that political spying is bad for democracy.

You can view this videotape to hear some of the peace activists who have been monitored by the police or questioned about their personal beliefs talk about the “chilling impact” such surveillance can have on such core American values as freedom of expression and assembly.

Today, we are calling on the Boston Police to cease the routine surveillance of peaceful protests and the monitoring of individuals who take part in them.

And we are asking you to join us in demanding that reforms are put in place to ensure that there will be no policing of dissent in Massachusetts.

Let’s work together to ensure that our Commonwealth–and all of America–remains a Constitutionally protected free speech zone.

And here’s the video from the ACLU:

Killing innocents, making enemies, breaking laws

Living Under Drones, a just-released and stunning report on America’s drone wars from the International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic of Stanford Law School and the Global Justice Clinic at New York University School of Law, offers a scathing debunking of the “death from above” strategy of “targeted killings” so eagerly embraced by both George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

First, a video featuring interviews with researchers and survivors from Brave New Foundation:

Rather than describe the report, here’s the first part of the Executive Summary and Recommendations, featuring a sharp, critical debunking of the rationale embraced by both administrations:

In the United States, the dominant narrative about the use of drones in Pakistan is of a surgically precise and effective tool that makes the US safer by enabling “targeted killing” of terrorists, with minimal downsides or collateral impacts.

This narrative is false.

Following nine months of intensive research—including two investigations in Pakistan, more than 130 interviews with victims, witnesses, and experts, and review of thousands of pages of documentation and media reporting—this report presents evidence of the damaging and counterproductive effects of current US drone strike policies. Based on extensive interviews with Pakistanis living in the regions directly affected, as well as humanitarian and medical workers, this report provides new and firsthand testimony about the negative impacts US policies are having on the civilians living under drones.

Real threats to US security and to Pakistani civilians exist in the Pakistani border areas now targeted by drones. It is crucial that the US be able to protect itself from terrorist threats, and that the great harm caused by terrorists to Pakistani civilians be addressed. However, in light of significant evidence of harmful impacts to Pakistani civilians and to US interests, current policies to address terrorism through targeted killings and drone strikes must be carefully re-evaluated.

It is essential that public debate about US policies take the negative effects of current policies into account.

First, while civilian casualties are rarely acknowledged by the US government, there is significant evidence that US drone strikes have injured and killed civilians. In public statements, the US states that there have been “no” or “single digit” civilian casualties.” It is difficult to obtain data on strike casualties because of US efforts to shield the drone program from democratic accountability, compounded by the obstacles to independent investigation of strikes in North Waziristan. The best currently available public aggregate data on drone strikes are provided by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ), an independent journalist organization. TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562-3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474-881 were civilians, including 176 children. TBIJ reports that these strikes also injured an additional 1,228-1,362 individuals. Where media accounts do report civilian casualties, rarely is any information provided about the victims or the communities they leave behind. This report includes the harrowing narratives of many survivors, witnesses, and family members who provided evidence of civilian injuries and deaths in drone strikes to our research team. It also presents detailed accounts of three separate strikes, for which there is evidence of civilian deaths and injuries, including a March 2011 strike on a meeting of tribal elders that killed some 40 individuals.

Second, US drone strike policies cause considerable and under-accounted-for harm to the daily lives of ordinary civilians, beyond death and physical injury. Drones hover twenty-four hours a day over communities in northwest Pakistan, striking homes, vehicles, and public spaces without warning. Their presence terrorizes men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities. Those living under drones have to face the constant worry that a deadly strike may be fired at any moment, and the knowledge that they are powerless to protect themselves. These fears have affected behavior. The US practice of striking one area multiple times, and evidence that it has killed rescuers, makes both community members and humanitarian workers afraid or unwilling to assist injured victims. Some community members shy away from gathering in groups, including important tribal dispute-resolution bodies, out of fear that they may

Sam Bacile: Hate-provoking filmmaker and. . .

The death of U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens in a Benghazi rocket attack today resulted from rage against a cheesy film trailer [Google it; we’re not posting it].

The fellow who says he made the film calls himself “Sam Bacile,” and he claims to be an American who holds Israeli citizenship who makes his living either as a filmmaker or a real estate developer.

Problem is, there’s no evidence he’s made any films beyond Innocence of Muslims, which seems to be precisely designed to produce the kind of outrage it’s generated.

He’s not listed on the Internet Movie Data Base, and his name doesn’t appear in the data base of ZABA Search [a comprehensive database] either in California or anywhere else in the U.S. And a Google search for his name reveals no hits before the release of the film trailer.

Having covered both the film industry [and even having worked in it], we can say that if there’s one thing filmmakers want, it’s recognition. And real estate developers are widely reported on.

Given the bizarre lack of any prior web presence who a man who claims two high-profile vocations, we’re amazed at the credulity or the mainstream media in swallowing claims made over the phone to two reporters.

The Wall Street Journal’s Matt Bradley and Dion Nissenbaum identify him as a “52-year-old writer, director and producer,” while the AP reported he was 56.

Bacile claimed his film was financed by Jewish donors.

From AP’s Shaya Tayefe Mohajer:

“This is a political movie,” Bacile told the AP. “The U.S. lost a lot of money and a lot of people in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we’re fighting with ideas.”

Bacile said he believes the movie will help his native land by exposing Islam’s flaws to the world.

“Islam is a cancer, period,” he said repeatedly, his solemn voice thickly accented.

The two-hour movie, “Innocence of Muslims,” cost $5 million to make and was financed with the help of more than 100 Jewish donors, said Bacile, who wrote and directed it.

Read the rest.

And then there’s this, from AP reporter Esam Mohamed [emphasis added]:

Though Bacile was apologetic about the American who was killed as a result of the outrage over his film, he blamed lax embassy security and the perpetrators of the violence.

“I feel the security system [at the embassies] is no good,” said Bacile. “America should do something to change it.”

A consultant on the film, Steve Klein, said the filmmaker is concerned for family members who live in Egypt. Bacile declined to confirm.

>snip<

He told the AP he was an Israeli Jew and an American citizen. But Israeli officials said they had not heard of Bacile and there was no record of him being a citizen. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not permitted to share personal information with the media.

Read the rest.

Adding yet another layer of complexity to an already-murky tale, the film was heavily promoted by an Egyptian-American of the Coptic Christian faith.

So, we have a movie the looks like it was made by a high school student yet clearly designed to inflame outrage among Muslims, and it’s endorsed by Terry Jones, the Koran-burning Florida Fundie pastor.

And it comes just as Israel is beating the war drums and searching for a provocation to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities and the Middle East and North Africa are aboil with tensions stirred up by an Arab Spring heavily promoted by Washington.

A U.S. ambassador is dead, the U.S. embassy grounds in Egypt were stormed and a flag burned, and millions of Muslims are outraged by a tawdry piece of trash designed to incite anger by a man who didn’t seem to exist before his trailer hit You Tube.

Forgive us for thinking something deep is afoot within that infamous wilderness of mirrors.

The New York Times: From watchdog to lapdog

The latest sad example of the demise of a once-great American newspaper.

First, a video report from RT:

From RT:

New York Times reporter Mark Mazzetti allegedly forwarded an advance copy of a column penned by colleague Maureen Dowd to a CIA spokesperson. The piece was about the film “Zero Dark Thirty” which is about the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Dowd’s column criticized the White House for giving Hollywood inside information while leaving the public in the dark about the operation – this all coming to light thanks to documents disclosed by the transparency group Judicial Watch. Jeff Cohen, media critic and journalism professor at Ithaca College, joins RT’s Liz Wahl to talk more about subjective journalism.

But there’s no “allegedly” involved, as Glenn Greenwald notes in The Guardian, where he reproduces the actual emails:

The CIA had evidently heard that Maureen Dowd was planning to write a column on the CIA’s role in pumping the film-makers with information about the Bin Laden raid in order to boost Obama’s re-election chances, and was apparently worried about how Dowd’s column would reflect on them. On 5 August 2011 (a Friday night), Harf wrote an email to Mazzetti with the subject line: “Any word??”, suggesting, obviously, that she and Mazzetti had already discussed Dowd’s impending column and she was expecting an update from the NYT reporter.

A mere two minutes after the CIA spokeswoman sent this Friday night inquiry, Mazzetti responded. He promised her that he was “going to see a version before it gets filed”, and assured her that there was likely nothing to worry about:

“My sense is there a very brief mention at bottom of column about CIA ceremony, but that [screenwriter Mark] Boal also got high level access at Pentagon.”

She then replied with this instruction to Mazzetti: “keep me posted”, adding that she “really appreciate[d] it”.

>snip<

Moments later, Mazzetti forwarded the draft of Dowd’s unpublished column to the CIA spokeswoman (it was published the following night online by the Times, and two days later in the print edition). At the top of that email, Mazzetti wrote: “this didn’t come from me … and please delete after you read.” He then proudly told her that his assurances turned out to be true:

“See, nothing to worry about.”

Read the rest.

As Greenwald notes:

Here we have a New York Times reporter who covers the CIA colluding with its spokesperson to plan for the fallout from the reporting by his own newspaper (“nothing to worry about”). Beyond this, that a New York Times journalist – ostensibly devoted to bringing transparency to government institutions – is pleading with the CIA spokesperson, of all people, to conceal his actions and to delete the evidence of collusion is so richly symbolic.

We shouldn’t be surprised. The Times sunk into into present slough of despond starting with Judith Miller, the reporter who did so much to boost the Bush administration’s case for invading Iran with all those stories about nonp-existent stocks of uranium.

The Times, as with all American newspapers, has been devastated by the Internet economy, downsizing its newsroom a reducing overseas bureaus — nad in the process becoming all too reliant on the goodwill of governments.

This latest scandal is merely symptomatic of the decline of American journalism.

Here in California, we’ve seen wave after wave of municipal government corruption, greatly facilitated by the devastation of the state’s newspapers, which once played a vigilant watchdog role in policing the actions of governments and elected officials.

Three of the five newspapers we worked for in the Golden State are gone, the cities they covered no longer regularly covered by full-time experienced journalists and the financial resources needed to support their work. That, in turn, creates an environment where corruption can thrive.

That the New York Times has fallen so low is a tragedy; one we mourn. But we save our tears for the thousands of communities left with either no newspapers or with decaying husks of once thriving institutions.

We’d say we expect more scandals, but who’s left to expose them?

The Program, the secret omnipresent panopticon

From documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras for the New York Times, a short and chilling documentary on the National Security Agency’s massive Stellar Wind surveillance system and its growing ability to capture and keep all electronic communications and automatically create profiles of the actions of every American. And they are building the capacity to capture a century’s worth of the full electronic spectrum of all our phone calls, emails, texts, and other communications.

The video features NSA whistleblower William Binney, who worked for the agency for 32 years and has revealed the existence of Stellar Wind, the ultimate Big Brotherish domestic surveillance program that uses technology Binney developed during the Cold War for spying on the Soviet Union.

Poitras, a New York documentarian, isn’t afraid of controversial subjects, and this documentary was created for incorporation into a trio of films she’s making about post-9/11 America.

Her choice of material has provoked considerable interest from the government, as she writes in the Times op-ed accompanying the film:

To those who understand state surveillance as an abstraction, I will try to describe a little about how it has affected me. The United States apparently placed me on a “watch-list” in 2006 after I completed a film about the Iraq war. I have been detained at the border more than 40 times. Once, in 2011, when I was stopped at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York and asserted my First Amendment right not to answer questions about my work, the border agent replied, “If you don’t answer our questions, we’ll find our answers on your electronics.”’ As a filmmaker and journalist entrusted to protect the people who share information with me, it is becoming increasingly difficult for me to work in the United States. Although I take every effort to secure my material, I know the N.S.A. has technical abilities that are nearly impossible to defend against if you are targeted.

Read the rest.

Assange speaks out as diplomatic furor heats up

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange spoke to supporters today from the balcony of the Ecuadorean embassy in London as the diplomatic battle over the decision of the government of President Rafael Correa to grant him asylum.

Assange took the opportunity to deliver a plea from alleged WikiLeaker Bradley Manning, now facing an army court martial on charges he provided WikiLeaks with those diplomatic cables that infamous video of a 12 July 2007 U.S. helicopter gunship shooting down 14 Iraqi civilians and two Reuters journalists.

The BBC reports:

Julian Assange has urged the US to end its “witch-hunt” against Wikileaks, in his first public statement since entering Ecuador’s London embassy.

He also called for the release of Bradley Manning, who is awaiting trial in the US accused of leaking classified documents to the Wikileaks site.

Mr Assange spoke from a balcony at the embassy and thanked Ecuador’s president, who has granted him asylum.

He faces extradition to Sweden over sexual assault claims, which he denies.

Mr Assange said: “As Wikileaks stands under threat, so does the freedom of expression and the health of all our societies.

“We must use this moment to articulate the choice that is before the government of the United States of America.

“Will it return to and re-affirm the revolutionary values it was founded on?
Legal battle

“Or will it lurch off the precipice, dragging us all into a dangerous and oppressive world in which journalists fall silent under the fear of prosecution and citizens must whisper in the dark?”

Read the rest.

Before Assange spoke, his lawyer, suspended Spanish judge Baltasar Garzón, spoke to reporters outside the embassy. From the London Telegraph:

The British government threat to invade the Ecuadorean embassy to arrest the WikiLeaks founder has provoked a furious response from that country.

From Emily Alpert of the Los Angeles Times:

As Britain and Ecuador remain locked in a diplomatic standoff over WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, the government in Quito made a public push to protect its London embassy.

Ecuador said Wednesday that Britain had threatened to storm its embassy to arrest Assange, who is being sought for questioning by Sweden on allegations of sexual assault. Ecuador has granted the activist political asylum, but Britain says it will not guarantee him safe passage out of the country. That leaves Assange marooned in the embassy, unable to leave despite winning asylum.

The British letter to Ecuador referenced a little-known law, saying, “You should be aware that there is a legal basis in the U.K. — the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act — which would allow us to take action to arrest Mr. Assange in the current premises of the embassy.”

The South American country has sought to marshal other nations across the Americas to insist that its embassy not be violated, calling a council meeting Friday of the Organization of American States.

At the meeting, Britain denied it had threatened Ecuador, saying Ecuador had aired a private note that had been misunderstood out of context.

“Allegations that the United Kingdom was threatening Ecuador and was about to storm the embassy are without foundation,” the British observer to the group told the council.

Read the rest.

Britain renounces doctrine of international law

Diplomatic asylum has been a key principle of international law, and embassy’s have traditionally reserved the right to house dissidents to shield them from persecution.

Embassy grounds are, by international law, sovereign territory of the state represented by the ambassador.

In perhaps the most famous case of diplomatic asylum of the 20th Century, the United States embassy in Budapest sheltered Hungarian Cardinal József Mindszenty from 1956 to 1971, when he was finally allowed to leave the country.

But now Britain’s Foreign Secretary says his country no longer recognizes the principle.

From Robert Hutton of Bloomberg:

U.K. Foreign Secretary William Hague said Britain doesn’t recognize the concept of “diplomatic asylum” and won’t allow Wikileaks founder Julian Assange safe passage out of the country after Ecuador granted him political asylum.

“We cannot give safe passage to someone in this situation,” Hague told reporters in London today. “The U.K. doesn’t accept the principle of diplomatic asylum.”

The foreign minister’s remarkable declaration has drawn criticism and a warning from a former British ambassador of potentially grave consequence for the U.K.’s own diplomats.

But the government’s move poses dangers

That’s the opinion of the country’s former ambassador to Russia.

From Rosa Prince of the London Telegraph:

The Foreign Office risks breaching international law if it carries out its threat to revoke the status of the Ecuadorean Embassy in order to arrest Julian Assange, a former ambassador to Moscow has warned.

Sir Tony Brenton, who served as the United Kingdom’s ambassador to Russia between 2004 and 2008, said “arbitrarily” overturning the status of the building where Mr Assange has taken shelter to avoid extradition, would make life ‘impossible’ for British diplomats