15 August 2010

you have to stop letting your mind recoil from this

[click image, and Old Uncle Dave puts paid to it with THIS LINK....]

.

Our society is closing. The fascists' lid—manhole cover—is slamming down. This is one global game where they have all the cards and all the chips. No escape, but to stand up. None.

I think I have avoided bringing this up to you the last few days because it is too depressing. It's a piece that almost seems to be adding nothing at all, nothing but more affirmation of a world gone mad, a sociopathological America, a big fat So What Else Is New? to the mountains of steaming toxins all around. But if you look at it starkly, with none of your filters in place, it tells you everything. So I'm going to splat it here, see if you catch my drift:
WikiLeaks and War Crimes

Four months before WikiLeaks rocketed to international notoriety, the Robin Hoods of the Internet quietly published a confidential CIA document labeled "NOFORN" (for "no foreign nationals")—meaning that it should not be shared even with US allies. That's because the March "Red Cell Special Memorandum" was a call to arms for a propaganda war to influence public opinion in allied nations. The CIA report describes a crisis in European support for the Afghanistan war, noting that 80 percent of German and French citizens are against increasing their countries' military involvement. The report suggests that "Afghan women could serve as ideal messengers in humanizing the [International Security Assistance Force] role in combating the Taliban because of women's ability to speak personally and credibly about their experiences under the Taliban, their aspirations for the future, and their fears of a Taliban victory."

On July 25 WikiLeaks published its massive cache of classified documents on the war in Afghanistan. Four days later, Time magazine posted on its website its August 9 cover story, featuring a horrifying image of a beautiful young Afghan woman named Aisha with a gaping hole where her nose once was, under the headline "What Happens if We Leave Afghanistan"—echoing the strategy laid out in the Red Cell report [see Ann Jones, "Our Afghan Demons," page 4].

These two media events unfolded in starkly different ways. While Time has been praised for telling Aisha's story, WikiLeaks has been characterized as a criminal syndicate with blood on its hands. Former Bush administration speechwriter Marc Thiessen called for the United States to use whatever means necessary to snatch WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, including rendering him from abroad. Others have called for the United States to shut down WikiLeaks and prosecute its members. Michigan Republican Congressman Mike Rogers has called for the alleged leaker, 22-year-old Army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning, to be executed if he is convicted.

Time managing editor Richard Stengel drew the contrast with WikiLeaks in an editor's letter accompanying the story, claiming that the WikiLeaks documents, unlike the Time article, fail to provide "insight into the way life is lived" in Afghanistan or to speak to "the consequences of the important decisions that lie ahead." Actually, the documents do exactly that. WikiLeaks may not be a media outlet and Assange may not be a journalist, but why does it matter? The documents provide concrete evidence of widespread US killings of Afghan civilians and attempts to cover up killings, and they portray unaccountable Special Operations forces as roaming the country hunting people—literally. They describe incidents of mass outrage sparked by the killing of civilians and confirm that the United States is funding both sides of the war through bribes paid to the Taliban and other resistance forces.

There was a brief moment when it seemed the contents of the WikiLeaks documents would spark an inquiry into what they say about the war and the way the United States is conducting it. "However illegally these documents came to light, they raise serious questions about the reality of America's policy toward Pakistan and Afghanistan," said Senator John Kerry, chair of the powerful Foreign Relations Committee, on the day the documents were revealed. "Those policies are at a critical stage, and these documents may very well underscore the stakes and make the calibrations needed to get the policy right more urgent."

But two days later, the official meme about WikiLeaks was in full swing: the leaks had endangered American lives. Kerry swiftly changed his tune. "I think it's important not to over-hype or get excessively excited about the meaning of those documents," Kerry said at a hearing on Afghanistan.

But what if what Daniel Ellsberg says about the leaker being a heroic whistleblower is true? What if, like Ellsberg with the Pentagon Papers, Manning really was motivated by conscience to leak documents he believed the American people and the world deserved to see?

Then again, Manning—who has been charged only in connection with the release of the "Collateral Murder" video of a helicopter assault in Iraq—might not even be the leaker. Assange has not confirmed any dealings between WikiLeaks and Manning. In Manning's online chats with Adrian Lamo, the hacker turned government informant who turned him in, Manning claimed to have access to 260,000 classified State Department cables exposing "almost criminal political backdealings." Lamo asked Manning to list the "highlights" of what he gave to WikiLeaks. Among those described by Manning are documents on the US Joint Task Force at Guantánamo, which Manning called the "Gitmo papers," a video of an airstrike in Afghanistan that killed civilians and State Department cables—the information, Manning said, would cause Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to "have a heart attack." Curiously, there was no mention of Afghan war documents. We may never know whether Manning leaked those documents. But what is clear from the chat logs is that Manning believed he was performing a public service by leaking what he did.

In one chat, Manning and Lamo are discussing Manning's passing of documents to WikiLeaks. Lamo asks Manning what his "endgame" is. Manning replies, "god knows what happens now," and adds, "hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms if not... than [sic] we're doomed as a species."

In one of his last chats with Lamo, reportedly on May 25, Manning says, "what if i were someone more malicious i could've sold to russia or china, and made bank?"

"why didn't you?" Lamo asks.

"because it's public data," Manning responds. "information should be free it belongs in the public domain...if its out in the open... it should be a public good." He adds: "im crazy like that."

Within days, Manning was arrested.


Jeremy Scahill
August 12, 2010 | This article appeared in the August 30/September 6, 2010 edition of The Nation.
Do you see how Scahill just laid it out in front of you? Just rapped it down that they are not concerned enough even to slow for the atomic bombshells being put out by Wikileaks? Isn't it even completely beside the point to be engaging in all this suspicion of Julian Assange when the message is blinking in bold neon before our very eyes?

I love you.

Wake up.

.

33 comments:

  1. I think I heard a shot...

    ReplyDelete
  2. I've had such an intense day, I'm just now getting to my dinner, but I think I'm going to HAVE a shot right after I finally eat it. Damn the diet for tonight.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It is probably trained to soak up all link only comments, even if it will let you do a link inside a whole comment, and then it gets all pissy again when you put in more than one link. It better either be learning or they better be working hard to fix it, or, or, or... or I have nothing left to threaten anyone with.

    ReplyDelete
  4. One can tell that the U.S. gas pipeline war in Afghanistan is going very badly by the amount of propaganda the establishment is cranking out about the Taliban. The Time magazine cover and article, the endless repetition of the "10 massacred aid workers" story etc. Another indication is the effort I heard about a few months ago, more quiet now, about possibly awarding a Congressional Medal of Honor to some medic who did what countless medics in World War II did who received no medal for it. Armies that aren't accustomed to losing and don't know how to handle it often resort to handing out medals like candy. Napoleon did it, the Third Reich did it and now the Fourth Reich is doing the same.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yuh, appalling how we never seem to be able to SEE ourselves through the lens of history, the one you'd think would be the easiest and the first to be applied. I'm still trying to find my teeth from when our murderating peace laureate proclaimed to us all that Afghanistan wasn't like Vietnam.

    Please sign with a screen name if you are going to use the "anonymous" feature here. It gets too confusing otherwise.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ya know, BB2, I think that tabloid gig for Assange is some kind of wry retort to the criticism that he is not a journalist. At least, it made me smile, but I'm sort of at the end of my rope with this impenetrable cloud of blather coming at us. Navigating it with a geiger counter grinds you down.

    The knowledge that the fog machine understands this forces people to get their energy out of anger, which provides the "benefit" of stoking the fires of political outrage, plus frying out the adrenal response in the population, rendering us supine in the face of environmental calamity and all insults to our Constitution... hell... maybe just plain supine. Period.

    So, anyway, I liked Assange's joke.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Brutal Truth8/16/10, 3:38 PM

    Sorry about that 99. This is the anonymous from 3:06. You're right about not being able to see ourselves through the lens of history. I think it is because most Americans are too close to the problem and suffer from the delusion that they call "American exceptionalism". Anyway, great blog and I'm so glad you aren't afraid to tell the truth about the 9/11 false flag operation. Unlike the Brad Blog which seems to take no position on the issue while concerning itself with minutiae. Keep up the good work!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Why thank you very much indeed, you Brute. :o)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Brutal Truth8/16/10, 4:04 PM

    You're most welcome. Thank YOU for starting this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well, no offense, but after reading yer link I kinda wish it woulda! :o{

    ReplyDelete
  11. Toxic Dispersants Found on Recently Opened Mississippi Shrimping and Oyster Grounds

    I won't be eating seafood for awhile. Only if I knew it came from Alaska, won't even trust Atlantic fish at this point.

    ReplyDelete
  12. OUD's becoming a master of spam free commenting I see...

    ReplyDelete
  13. Oh, he's just a master plain.

    I can't even let my brain light on the FACT they are still trying to pull any seafood from the Gulf. ONLY in capitalism, only in capitalism. The stupidity of it is BEYOND defying description.

    ReplyDelete
  14. It's not of my doing. google's filter must finally recognize me.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Oh, oh, and modest. I forgot modest. :-P

    ReplyDelete
  16. This morning, on the TV news and in the newspaper they are all aglow for the wonderful oil-free shrimp harvest!

    Then, buried in the last paragraph, is mention of the fact that they are "developing" a test for the dispersants.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Brutal Truth8/17/10, 2:57 PM

    They're sniffing the shrimp to see if they smell like oil or dispersants. I'm no expert but this doesn't seem very thorough.

    "Seafood from some parts of the oil-fouled Gulf of Mexico has been declared safe to eat by the government, based in part on human smell tests. But even some Gulf fishermen are questioning whether the fish and shrimp are OK to feed to their own families. Some are turning up their noses at the smell tests — in which inspectors sniff seafood for chemical odors — and are demanding more thorough testing to reassure the buying public about the effects of the oil and the dispersants used to fight the slick. ... Experts say smell tests may sound silly but are a proven technique that saves time and money. Moreover, they are the only way to check fish for chemical dispersants, though FDA spokeswoman Meghan Scott said government scientists are developing a tissue test. It is not clear when it will be ready. ... Kevin Kleinow, a professor of aquatic toxicology, said he is laying off Gulf seafood until the government releases more specifics about the testing it conducted, including exactly what species are being monitored and what levels of toxic substances are being found. He said he is also concerned that a smell test won't sniff out dispersants. "Some of them — we've done work on a number of surfactants that are used in dispersants — have very little odor," he said."
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jwwW8sMP0B230zNuvkZtZ6rP8EWgD9HBK57O0

    ReplyDelete
  18. Brutal Truth8/17/10, 3:00 PM

    "Developing a tissue test... not clear when it will be ready" (!) but the greedy bastards are already saying not to worry, it's safe, we smelled it. Sorry but their smell test doesn't pass the, well, the smell test.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Not to mention that everyone on the Gulf Coast has lost their sense of smell from inhaling all those noxious and volatile toxins... so how, even if we could be psychotic enough to just go along believing in their probity... could they be expected to tell?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Brutal Truth8/17/10, 5:19 PM

    Exactly.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Brutal Truth8/17/10, 6:36 PM

    CNN was just saying that marine biologists have discovered that unsurprisingly the phytoplankton are getting contaminated with oil and dispersants and as everyone knows the shrimp and other marine life feed on them. The N.O.A.A.'s Jane Lubchenko has been also unsurprisingly downplaying the matter, no big deal. Example # 5,786 that the U.S. government is run by and for big business.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Brutal Truth8/19/10, 7:55 PM

    Where is the article with Raytheon and the A-3 Skywarrior remote control matter? I clicked off of it earlier and now I can't find it. I know it's here somewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Brutal Truth8/19/10, 8:35 PM

    Thanks 99.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.