Tom Hanks is full of shit. I’m using
the term because it needs to be used. I’m not censoring it because I’m
using it intentionally. I am censoring it in the title because the
title of this post will appear at THE COMMON ILLS and others
on their link lists and I don’t want them to be not work safe because
of that.
But Tom Hanks is full of s**t.
What's the significance of this story today?
When
you're not just celebrating the nostalgia of history, it comes down to
human behavior. And human behavior never
changes. It's always the same. Vanity of vanity, nothing new under the
sun. The Nixon administration tried to stop the story from being
published. They took on the First Amendment by saying: "You can't tell
that story, and if you do, we're going to threaten
you." That is going on, of course, right now.
In what way?
There's a number of ways that you can assault the First Amendment. Back in 1971, it was done in such a boldfaced
way that a newspaper, The New York Times,
was stopped from publishing a story. And it was threatened;
anybody who was going to try to publish that story was going to go to
jail for treason. Treason, my friend. That's the stuff that goes on with
tin-pot dictators and communist tyrants and
third-world banana republics. [But] I'd have to say, as Steven
Spielberg said: "The truth is making a comeback."
Attacks on the press?
What?
He’s concerned all the sudden about it. Back in November he couldn’t have imagined it?
Who has Donald Trump threatened with prison?
I’m asking because I know who Barack threatened.
Tim Shorrock (THE NATION) reported in April of 2013:
In the
annals of national security, the Obama administration will long be
remembered for its unprecedented crackdown on whistleblowers. Since
2009, it has employed the World War I–era Espionage Act a record six
times to prosecute government officials suspected of leaking classified
information. The latest example is
John Kiriakou,
a former CIA officer serving a thirty-month term in federal prison for
publicly identifying an intelligence operative involved in torture. It’s
a pattern: the whistleblowers are punished,
sometimes severely, while the perpetrators of the crimes they expose
remain free.
Or how about THE COMMON ILLS on May 13, 2013:
The so-called 'war on terror' wounds another democratic institution.
Mark Sherman (AP) reports that his news organization's phone
records for April and May 2012 were seized by the US Justice Dept.
Sherman quotes a statement from Associated Press President and CEO Gary
Pruitt:
There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of the Associated Press and its reporters. These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP's newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP's activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know.
Revelations of the seizure emerge ten days after World Press Freedom Day. The news also emerges after AP won their 51st Pulizter Prize -- last month photo journalists Rodrigo Abd, Manu Brabo, Narciso Contreras, Khalil Hamra and Muhammed Muheisen were honored, and it emerges after AP photo journalist David Guttenfelder was awarded the Infinity Award for Photojournalism only days ago. 167 years ago this month, the Associated Press began as "five New York City newspapers got together to fund a pony express route through Alabama in order to bring news of the Mexican War north more quickly than the U.S. Post Office could deliver it. In the decades since, AP has been first to tell the world of many of history’s most important moments, from the assassination of Abraham Lincoln and the bombing of Pearl Harbor to the fall of the shah of Iran and the death of Pope John Paul." Over 30 correspondents have died in those years in the pursuit of news stories. The story of the Associated Press is the story of changing technology, "AP delivered news by pigeon, pony express, railroad, steamship, telegraph and teletype in the early years. In 1935, AP began sending photographs by wire. A radio network was formed in 1973, and an international video division was added in 1994. In 2005, a digital database was created to hold all AP content, which has allowed the agency to deliver news instantly and in every format to the ever expanding online world."
So what led to the US government's assault on the First Amendment? The AP believes it is this report by Adam Goldman and Matt Apuzzo from May 2012 which opened with, "The CIA thwarted an ambitious plot by Al Qaeda's affiliate in Yemen to destroy a U.S.-bound airliner using a bomb with a sophisticated new design around the one-year anniversary of the killing of Osama bin Laden, the Associated Press has learned."
What's the problem with the story? That the government didn't want AP to cover it for another 24 hours. At the start of the month a year ago, AP learned of this story -- presumably from US government sources. The report ran May 7th, a day before the administration planned to grab headlines with a news conference announcing the foiling of the plot. (As Goldman and Apuzzo noted in their original report, the White House and the CIA knew AP would be reporting this and AP delayed the story for a week at their request.) Though this appears to fall into what has already been established in Brave New Films' documentary War On Whistleblowers: Free Press and the National Security State, the US Justice Dept insists in a statement that they have done nothing wrong. They tell the Australian Business Insider:
We take seriously our obligations to follow all applicable laws, federal regulations, and Department of Justice policies when issuing subpoenas for phone records of media organizations. Those regulations require us to make every reasonable effort to obtain information through alternative means before even considering a subpoena for the phone records of a member of the media. We must notify the media organization in advance unless doing so would pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation. Because we value the freedom of the press, we are always careful and deliberative in seeking to strike the right balance between the public interest in the free flow of information and the public interest in the fair and effective administration of our criminal laws.
There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of the Associated Press and its reporters. These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP's newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP's activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know.
Revelations of the seizure emerge ten days after World Press Freedom Day. The news also emerges after AP won their 51st Pulizter Prize -- last month photo journalists Rodrigo Abd, Manu Brabo, Narciso Contreras, Khalil Hamra and Muhammed Muheisen were honored, and it emerges after AP photo journalist David Guttenfelder was awarded the Infinity Award for Photojournalism only days ago. 167 years ago this month, the Associated Press began as "five New York City newspapers got together to fund a pony express route through Alabama in order to bring news of the Mexican War north more quickly than the U.S. Post Office could deliver it. In the decades since, AP has been first to tell the world of many of history’s most important moments, from the assassination of Abraham Lincoln and the bombing of Pearl Harbor to the fall of the shah of Iran and the death of Pope John Paul." Over 30 correspondents have died in those years in the pursuit of news stories. The story of the Associated Press is the story of changing technology, "AP delivered news by pigeon, pony express, railroad, steamship, telegraph and teletype in the early years. In 1935, AP began sending photographs by wire. A radio network was formed in 1973, and an international video division was added in 1994. In 2005, a digital database was created to hold all AP content, which has allowed the agency to deliver news instantly and in every format to the ever expanding online world."
So what led to the US government's assault on the First Amendment? The AP believes it is this report by Adam Goldman and Matt Apuzzo from May 2012 which opened with, "The CIA thwarted an ambitious plot by Al Qaeda's affiliate in Yemen to destroy a U.S.-bound airliner using a bomb with a sophisticated new design around the one-year anniversary of the killing of Osama bin Laden, the Associated Press has learned."
What's the problem with the story? That the government didn't want AP to cover it for another 24 hours. At the start of the month a year ago, AP learned of this story -- presumably from US government sources. The report ran May 7th, a day before the administration planned to grab headlines with a news conference announcing the foiling of the plot. (As Goldman and Apuzzo noted in their original report, the White House and the CIA knew AP would be reporting this and AP delayed the story for a week at their request.) Though this appears to fall into what has already been established in Brave New Films' documentary War On Whistleblowers: Free Press and the National Security State, the US Justice Dept insists in a statement that they have done nothing wrong. They tell the Australian Business Insider:
We take seriously our obligations to follow all applicable laws, federal regulations, and Department of Justice policies when issuing subpoenas for phone records of media organizations. Those regulations require us to make every reasonable effort to obtain information through alternative means before even considering a subpoena for the phone records of a member of the media. We must notify the media organization in advance unless doing so would pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation. Because we value the freedom of the press, we are always careful and deliberative in seeking to strike the right balance between the public interest in the free flow of information and the public interest in the fair and effective administration of our criminal laws.
Or how about this from Jake Tapper’s THE LEAD on CNN January 2, 2014 with THE WASHINGTON POST’s Ruth Marcus:
TAPPER: Ruth, it is true that the Obama administration has used the Espionage Act --
MARCUS: Absolutely.
TAPPER: -- more to go after whistleblowers who leaked to journalists not just than any previous administration, but then more than all previous administrations combined. So, the argument that Ellsberg makes that it's a different environment than the '70s might be accurate, no?
MARCUS: Well, I think there has been an excessive use of the whistleblower -- excessive use of power against whistleblowers.
MARCUS: Absolutely.
TAPPER: -- more to go after whistleblowers who leaked to journalists not just than any previous administration, but then more than all previous administrations combined. So, the argument that Ellsberg makes that it's a different environment than the '70s might be accurate, no?
MARCUS: Well, I think there has been an excessive use of the whistleblower -- excessive use of power against whistleblowers.
Since
Barack Obama entered the White
House in 2009, his government has waged a war against whistleblowers and
official leakers. On his watch, there have been eight prosecutions
under the 1917 Espionage Act – more than double those
under all previous presidents combined.
As President Barack Obama
soared into office eight years ago, he promised, on his first day in the
White House, to launch “a new era of open government.”
“The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed
by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears,” Obama said in a
Jan. 21, 2009 memorandum.
Obama was urging the attorney general to issue new guidelines protecting The Freedom of Information Act. “In
the face of doubt,” Obama proclaimed, “openness prevails.”
Notably,
Obama’s transparency pledge came on the heels of President George W.
Bush’s administration, which kept
state-sponsored torture of alleged enemy combatants, a nascent drone
assassination program, and covert eavesdropping of American citizens
hidden from the eyes of the American public.
[. . .]
As for Obama’s record, here’s what history will show: In his eight years in office, the Obama Justice Department
spearheaded eight Espionage Act prosecutions, more than all US administrations
combined. Journalists were also caught in the crosshairs:
Investigators sought phone records for Associated Press journalists,
threatened to jail an investigative reporter for
The New York Times, and named a Fox News reporter a co-conspirator in a leak case. In Texas, a
journalist investigating private defense contractors
became the focus of a federal prosecution and was initially charged for
sharing a hyperlink containing hacked information that had already
been made public.
Actually, that last bit is made up; Trump hasn’t talked about the Espionage Act. Instead, the Obama administration has used the draconian 1917 law to prosecute more leakers and whistleblowers than all previous administrations combined. Under the cover of the Espionage Act and other laws, the administration has secretly obtained the emails and phone records of various reporters, and declared one of them — James Rosen of Fox News — a potential “co-conspirator” with his government source. Another reporter, James Risen of the New York Times, faced a jail sentence unless he revealed a government source (which he refused to do).
Obama has warned of the imminent perils of a Trump presidency, but on the key issue of freedom of the press, which is intimately tied to the ability of officials to talk to journalists, his own administration has established a dangerous precedent for Trump — or any future occupant of the Oval Office — to use one of the most punitive laws of the land against some of the most courageous and necessary people we have. One section of the Espionage Act even allows for the death penalty.
How about THE NEW YORK TIMES? James Risen, December 30, 2016:
If Donald J.
Trump decides as president to throw a whistle-blower in jail for trying
to talk to a reporter, or gets the F.B.I. to spy on a journalist, he
will have one man to thank for bequeathing him such expansive
power: Barack Obama.
Mr. Trump made
his animus toward the news media clear during the presidential campaign,
often expressing his disgust with coverage through Twitter or in
diatribes at rallies. So if his campaign is any guide, Mr. Trump
seems likely to enthusiastically embrace the aggressive crackdown on
journalists and whistle-blowers that is an important yet little
understood component of Mr. Obama’s presidential legacy.
Criticism of Mr.
Obama’s stance on press freedom, government transparency and secrecy is
hotly disputed by the White House, but many journalism groups say the
record is clear. Over the past eight years, the administration
has prosecuted nine cases involving whistle-blowers and leakers,
compared with only three by all previous administrations combined. It
has repeatedly used the Espionage Act, a relic of World War I-era
red-baiting, not to prosecute spies but to go after government
officials who talked to journalists.
Under Mr. Obama, the Justice Department and the F.B.I. have spied on reporters by monitoring their phone records,
labeled one journalist an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal
case for simply doing reporting and issued subpoenas to other reporters
to try to force them to reveal their sources and testify in criminal
cases.
I could do this all day. So Tom
Hanks, if you’re concerned about what you say you’re concerned about,
where were you when all of this was going on?
Tom Hanks is full of s**t.
He’s an overrated fading movie star who has aged out of cute and has nothing more to offer.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Wednesday, December 20, 2017. Twitter censors the prime minister of the
KRG, AP reveals many more civilians have been killed during the battle
of Mosul than the governments have revealed, Burn Pits 360 explains how
the government is still not helping veterans, and much more.
The effects from burn pits? An issue we have covered since Bully Boy Bush occupied the White House. And in all the time since, the US government still cannot address the issue despite a lot of pretending otherwise. BURN PITS 360 has issued the following:
Turning to Iraq . . .
The effects from burn pits? An issue we have covered since Bully Boy Bush occupied the White House. And in all the time since, the US government still cannot address the issue despite a lot of pretending otherwise. BURN PITS 360 has issued the following:
| ||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
|
Turning to Iraq . . .
A second day of anti-government protests in Iraq's semi-autonomous Kurdish region has killed at least six people and injured over 70
Security forces kill at least five demonstrators in a rally against the Kurdish Regional Government in northern Iraq aje.io/gasy5
IRAQI NEWS notes:
The Iraqi government could remove the Kurdistan Region leadership following violent anti-government protests over the past two days, a newspaper reported, quoting presidential sources.
Saudi newspaper Okaz, quoting “trusted sources” at the Iraqi presidency, said Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi is mulling various options to address the crisis in the autonomous, northern Iraq region, including the removal of Nechirvan Barzani’s cabinet based on the 78th article of the constitution, which empowers the prime minister to appoint and remove ministers after parliament approval.
Abadi, speaking during his weekly press conference on Tuesday, urged Kurdistan’s government to “respect the peaceful protests” as the region closed a second day of violent protests decrying delayed employee payments and poor services.
It's interesting to hear a prime minister of Iraq claim the need to "respect peaceful protests." It was Hayder al-Abadi's predecessor Nouri al-Maliki who was responsible for the Hawija massacre. The April 23, 2013 massacre of a sit-in in Hawija which resulted from Nouri's federal forces storming in. Alsumaria noted Kirkuk's Department of Health (Hawija is in Kirkuk) announced 50 activists have died and 110 were injured in the assault. AFP reported the death toll eventually (as some wounded died) rose to 53 dead. UNICEF noted that the dead included 8 children (twelve more were injured).
Though there have been annual demonstrations to remember those killed, Hayder al-Abadi has never commented on this massacre. Hayder, after all, is a member of State of Law -- Nouri al-Maliki's political coalition -- and he is a member of the Dawa Party (Nouri's political party).
Suddenly, he's concerned about "peaceful protests"?
And how does what's taken place qualify as peaceful? The offices of political parties are being set on fire.
Kurdistan Regional Government Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani Tweeted the following:
My message to the protesters
These are challenging times for our region. Your frustrations are understandable, and I hear them. Peaceful expression of views is of course a legitimate and democratic right...
goo.gl/oQSqnK
پەیامم بۆ خۆپیشاندەران
ھەرێمەکەمان لە ئێستادا بە دۆخێکێ ھەستیاردا تێپەڕ دەبێت. من لە داواکارییەکانی ئێوە تێدەگەم و ھاوسۆزم لەگەڵتان. دەربڕینی ئاشتیانەی بیروبۆچوون مافێکی شەرعی و دیموکراسییە.
بەڵام توندوتیژی ھیچ کاتێک پەسەند نییە...
goo.gl/FLA9uG
Use the second link. The first link takes you to this:
https://goo.gl/oQSqnK – this goo.gl shortlink has been disabled. It was found to be violating our Terms of Service. Click here and here for more information about our terms and policies respectively.
Really?
An official statement from an elected leader is found to be violating the Terms of Service?
That was rat f**king and that's all it was -- disabling the link. It was targeted with complaints so that it wouldn't be accessible to those who read English only.
Here's the statement that Twitter will not currently link to:
My message to the protesters
These are challenging times for our region. Your frustrations are
understandable, and I hear them. Peaceful expression of views is of
course a legitimate and democratic right.
But violence is never acceptable. I call on all of you to conduct your protests peacefully.
We must also remember that we still live in a violent and fragile
region. Just in the last day our Peshmerga have fought a skirmish with
Daesh terrorists. Of even more concern is that we are tracking movements
by Iraqi forces in Makhmour.
We are stronger when we are united. I appreciate your resilience and
patience in this difficult period. We have got through much worse in the
past, and I still believe that, together, we will build a better
future.
Again, censoring a statement by an elected leader -- just on the face of it -- is wrong.
But read over the above and ask how that got censored?
The answer?
Complaints to Twitter.
About actual content?
No, just a mass of complaints made with the knowledge that it would get the link disabled (at least temporarily).
There's a great deal going on here.
And in social media, it's being noted that it's awfully lucky for some that the Kurds are facing this. Who benefits? The age old question is asked and the answer most often given is the US government.
In part because the US government has (again) turned its back on the KRG. In part because the moves of the political party Goran appear to increase turmoil (and Goran was fueled by CIA seed money).
Gorran (change) movement (second largest group in parliament) and Islamic Group (fifth largest group in parliament) withdraw from the Iraqi Kurdish regional cabinet. #KurdistanProtests
The change movement will also leave top regional parliament position and suspend it's 'strategic' agreement with the PUK.
When have they contributed for the sake of KRG? Let these traitors go to Baghdad parliament. With their violent terror protestors.
The protestors may be genuine but there are some who question that and those questioning may have reason to do so.
Hey, you know what! Let’s protest and riot against KRG and their leadership for not giving salaries. Let’s chant Abadi’s name. #traitors #slemani #Ranya #PUK #Gorran #KRG #Barzani #KDP #Peshmerga #TwitterKurds
The weird thing is; they riot against KRG for salaries, but everyone knows Abadi has cut the money for this. Still they chant his name. Besides, ISIS, Iraqi army and PMU are attacking Kurdistan. This all happened in last 2-3 days. Betrayal of 16 october is still pending...
If this protests contain any outside elements, it's most likely as key instigators.
The salary issue is genuine. It has been going on for some time. Whether it is being used by certain forces to manipulate is the question. And the answer may very well be: No. It may be that this is Kurdish-grown and no outside influence is shaping it. But the question is being raised repeatedly.
The Kurds have other pressing issues to deal with.
Among them?
Reports that the Islamic State continues to battle in Iraq.
Our gallant #Peshmerga repelled an #ISIS offensive in Makhmour, who left 8 bodies behind.They were morethan 30 #terrorists. Although #Peshmerga are ever prepared to defend Kurdistan, this indicates instability and insecurity in Iraq, despite Iraqi PM’s announcement of ISIS defeat
And there's also the continued threat from the Baghdad-based government of Iraq.
#Kurdistan Region’s Security Council warns of Iraqi military buildup outside of #Erbil city, and around Makhmour.
Iraqi military buildup in and around Makhmour, South West Erbil, has continued for over a week. In this position, armored vehicles and Humvees have been deployed.
As noted above, the Peshmerga is still fighting the Islamic State. That news is troubling -- especially when you factor in Iraq's Prime Minister Hayder al-Abadi's repeated claims of victory over ISIS.
Kamal al-Ayash (NIQASH) reported on the 13th:
Last week the Iraqi government declared victory over the extremist group known as the Islamic State. But, according to locals and military personnel living in the Anbar province, that declaration was premature.
“I have seen no genuine indications that this province is rid of the Islamic State group,” says Ayad al-Nimrawi, a 43-year-old who runs a restaurant in the Kilo area, about 160 kilometres along the road between Baghdad and the Syrian-Jordanian border. “I still see commercial trucks accompanied by security details when they come along here. Even the security forces cannot travel down here alone, they require extra protection.”
“I will only feel that we have won the final victory when I see life returning to this road as it was before the Islamic State came. We used to travel here at night without any fear of armed groups but today this international road is almost completely closed. As soon as dusk falls, this road is a death trap.”
Equally troubling is the victory dance Hayder's been doing when you consider what the so-called victory has cost.
AP reports:
An Associated Press investigation has found that
between 9,000 and 11,000 civilians died in the final battle to drive
Islamic State extremists out of the Iraqi city of Mosul.
That’s a civilian casualty rate nearly 10 times higher than what has been previously reported. The deaths are acknowledged neither by the coalition, the Iraqi government nor the Islamic State group’s self-styled caliphate.
On civilian casualties, Belkas Wille (Human Rights Watch) writes:
In its latest civilian casualty report, the US-led coalition in Iraq said that after reviewing “available information” there was insufficient evidence to find civilians were harmed in an April 2017 airstrike it carried out on the Sakkak neighborhood in Mosul. Yet Human Rights Watch previously documented that the strike killed 13 civilians.
I wondered what the “available information” reviewed had been. I wrote on behalf of Human Rights Watch to the coalition’s media contact, asked the question, and offered to share our information – the contact for an eyewitness to the strike, a man who personally knew the victims, and the names of the 13 civilians who he told us were killed.
A spokesperson emailed back and – without taking up our offer of information – claimed they had considered “all reasonably available evidence.”
The email pointed to abuses by ISIS and “the Russian-backed regime” in Syria, noting that “unlike ISIS, the Coalition works extensively to reduce the risk to civilians on the ground.”
Yes, the coalition is clearly more transparent. But since when is ISIS the standard against which coalition countries measure their actions?
The following community sites -- plus BLACK AGENDA REPORT -- updated:
TJ Miller accused of assault
7 hours ago
The tax bill
7 hours ago
Again on DoD's space program
7 hours ago
We not need Al Franken
7 hours ago
She knew
8 hours ago
Jinkies!
8 hours ago
The trickster
8 hours ago
Stop scapegoating Jill Stein
8 hours ago
