CNN Caught Staging News Segments on Syria With Actors

August 30, 2013

The primary “witness” that the mainstream media is using as a source in Syria has been caught staging fake news segments.  Recent video evidence proves that “Syria Danny”, the supposed activist who has been begging for military intervention on CNN, is really just a paid actor and a liar.

While Assad is definitely a tyrant like any head of state, a US invasion of the country is a worst case scenario for the people living there.

By pointing out that the mainstream media is orchestrating their entire coverage of this incident, we are not denying that there is a tremendous amount of death and violence in Syria right now.  However, we are showing that the mainstream media version of events is scripted and staged propaganda.

The following video shows him contradicting himself while off air, and even asking crew members to “get the gunfire sounds ready” for his video conference with Anderson Cooper on CNN.

 

 

“Syria Danny” has also appeared on many other news programs, and every single time his story on specific events has changed.

This is not the first time that mainstream media has been exposed as propaganda, it happens all the time, especially during times of war.

Some of the most hyped up news images of our time surrounding war were not actually real but were simply public relations stunts, designed as psychological warfare operations. 

No one in America can forget the image of Saddam Hussein’s statue being toppled and covered with an American flag, yet few people realize that this was a hoax, a staged psychological operation coordinated between the military and the media.  In July of 2004 journalist Jon Elmer exposed an internal army study of the war showing that this whole statue scenario was indeed a set up. 

In the article Elmer writes “the infamous toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein in Firdos Square in central Baghdad on April 9, 2003 was stage-managed by American troops and not a spontaneous reaction by Iraqis. According to the study, a Marine colonel first decided to topple the statue, and an Army psychological operations unit turned the event into a propaganda moment… The Marines brought in cheering Iraqi children in order to make the scene appear authentic, the study said.  Allegations that the event was staged were made in April of last year, mostly by opponents of the war, but were ignored or ridiculed by the US government and most visible media outlets. “[1]

 

 

 

The statue hoax was just one example in a long list of lies and psychological operations surrounding the multiple wars in Iraq.  At the onset of Operation Desert Storm in 1990 a public relations firm by the name of Hill and Knowlton spent millions of dollars on the government’s behalf, constructing news pieces that would sell the war to the American public.  One of the most moving pranks to come from this push to war was the testimony of a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, known only by her first name of Nayirah.  In a videotaped testimony that was later distributed to the media she said “I volunteered at the al-Addan hospital, While I was there, I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns, and go into the room where . . . babies were in incubators. They took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators, and left the babies on the cold floor to die.”

Sounds horrible huh?  Well, luckily it never happened, this too was a fabricated event designed to dehumanize the Iraqi people.  The whole thing was exposed when the journalists discovered that the witness Nayirah was actually the daughter of a US ambassador who was being coaxed by military psychological operations specialists.  If the government and media cooperate to deceive the American public during times of war then there should be no doubt in your mind that the same techniques are used during times of peace, and especially elections.

The following clip is another classic staged news segment that was aired by CNN:

 

Poverty in U.S.A.

Before the mid-1970s, economic growth in the United States was associated with falling poverty rates. If that relationship had held, poverty would have been eradicated in the 1980s. The decoupling of rising growth and falling poverty, however, means that Americans are working longer and harder but becoming poorer and less economically secure.
Quick facts

$22,314  -  In 2010, the poverty threshold was $22,314 for a family of four.
15.1%   - 15.1 percent— just over 46 million Americans— were officially in poverty in 2010. This is an increase from 12.5 percent in 2007.
27.4%  - Among racial and ethnic groups, African Americans had the highest poverty rate, 27.4 percent, followed by Hispanics at 26.6 percent and whites at 9.9 percent.
45.8%  - 45.8 percent of young black children (under age 6) live in poverty, compared to 14.5 percent of white children.
28.0%  - In 2011, 28.0 percent of workers earned poverty-level wages ($11.06 or less an hour).
18-25  - Workers earning poverty-level wages are disproportionately female, black, Hispanic, or between the ages of 18 and 25.
1.8x  - The United States spends less on social programs (16.2 percent of GDP) than similarly developed countries (21.3 percent of GDP), has a relative poverty rate (the share of the population living on less than half of median household income) 1.8 times higher than those peer nations, and has a child poverty rate more than twice as high.

Other dimensions of poverty

33.9%
The official poverty rate is widely accepted as being inadequate in capturing those whose earnings make it difficult to make ends meet. To account for this, many cite the “twice poverty” rate, which is double the threshold ($44,628 in 2010 for a family of four) and provides a more accurate measurement of material deprivation. In 2010, the twice poverty rate was 33.9 percent.
44.3%
The further below the official poverty line you fall, the more vulnerable you are. Nearly half (44.3 percent) of the poor are in deep poverty (living on half or less of the official poverty line; this deep-poverty threshold stood at $11,057 in 2010 for a family of four).
Spotlight

Moving in and out of poverty

Since 1973’s historical low of 11.1 percent poverty in the United States, poverty rates generally rise during recessions and drop during recoveries. The recovery following the 2001 recession, however, saw poverty increase and then further explode during the Great Recession.

From 2008 through 2009, 32.2 percent were in poverty for at least one month, and 52.6 percent were below twice poverty for a least one month. In addition, 4.6 percent were in poverty for the entirety of the two-year period, while 18 percent were at twice poverty for the entirety. Therefore, the official poverty rate of 15.1 percent understates the number of people who experience poverty.
Income inequality is greatest cause of higher poverty rates

Income inequality is the largest factor contributing to higher poverty rates. Increased numbers of minorities and single-mother-headed households are often cited as determinants of higher poverty rates, though they are much smaller contributing factors. A study of the 1979–2007 period finds:
5.5  - The largest contributor to the overall rise in the poverty rate is income inequality, which increased poverty rates by 5.5 percentage points.
0.9  - Changing racial composition accounts for a 0.9 percentage-point increase in poverty rates.
1.4  - Family structure (single-mother headed households) accounts for a 1.4 percentage-point increase in poverty rates.
↓ 3.8  - Increased educational attainment decreased poverty rates 2.7 percentage points, and income growth contributed to a 3.8 percentage-point decrease in poverty rates.
- See more at: http://stateofworkingamerica.org/fact-sheets/poverty/#sthash.YfQuaZUj.dpuf

What you should know about developing Syria situation

Thursday’s announcement by the White House that it would begin supplying Syria’s rebels with small arms and ammunition represents a modest shift in tactics and by itself doesn’t represent a major strategic shift in U.S. policy on Syria, contrary to the conventional wisdom.

The use of chemical weapons against Syrian citizens is abominable, but have we learned nothing from our mistakes in the past?

Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com/Aleksey Klints

September 1, 2013  |  

We are on the brink of a tragic decision to strike Syria, because, in the dubious logic of the President, “a lot of people think something should be done,” and American “credibility” is at stake. He and his secretary of state assure us that the strike will be “limited” and “surgical.”

The use of chemical weapons against Syrian citizens is abominable, and if Assad’s regime is responsible he should be treated as an international criminal and pariah. 

 But have we learned nothing from our mistakes in the past? Time and again over the last half century American presidents have justified so-called “surgical strikes” because the nation’s “credibility” is at stake, and because we have to take some action to show our “strength and resolve” — only to learn years later that our credibility suffered more from our brazen bellicosity, that the surgical strikes only intensified hostilities and made us captive to forces beyond our control, and that our resolve eventually disappears in the face of mounting casualties of Americans and innocent civilians — and in the absence of clearly-defined goals or even clear exit strategies. We and others have paid an incalculable price.

We should instead be testing the nation’s resolve to provide good jobs at good wages to all Americans who need them, and measuring our credibility by the yardstick of equal opportunity. And we should strike (and join striking workers) against big employers who won’t provide their employees with minimally-decent wages. We need to commit ourselves to a living wage, and to providing more economic security to the millions of Americans now working harder but getting nowhere.

Mr. President, a lot of Americans do think something should be done — about these mounting problems at our doorstep here in America. We can have more influence on the rest of the world by showing the rest of the world our resolve to live by our ideals here in America, than by using brute force to prove our resolve elsewhere.

It's time to stand against further escalation of the Syrian civil war.

The US Navy launches a Tomahawk cruise missile.
Photo Credit: U.S. Navy/Wikimedia Commons

September 1, 2013  |  

 

 

 

 

If I was really optimistic, I’d say that President Obama is hoping that Congress will follow the example of the British parliament – and vote against his proposed military strike on Syria. It would let him off the hook – he could avoid an illegal, dangerous, immoral military assault and say it’s Congress’ fault.

But unfortunately I don’t think that much optimism is called for. Obama’s speech – not least his dismissal of any time pressure, announcing that his commanders have reassured him that their preparations to fire on command is not time-bound – gives opponents of greater U.S. intervention in Syria a week or more to mobilize, to build opposition in Congress and in the public, and to continue fighting against this new danger. As the President accurately described it, “some things are more important than partisan politics.”  For war opponents in Congress, especially President Obama’s progressive supporters, keeping that in mind is going to be difficult but crucial.

Obama said he will “seek Congressional authorization” for a military strike on Syria.  He said he believes U.S. policy is “stronger” if the president and Congress are united, but he made clear his belief that he “has the authority to strike without” Congressional support. That’s the bottom line.  The first question shouted by the press as he left the White House Rose Garden was “will you still attack if Congress votes no?”  He didn’t answer.

There is little question that the Obama administration was blindsided by the British parliament’s vote against the prime minister’s proposal to endorse war. They were prepared to go to war without United Nations authorization, but were counting on the UK as the core partner in a new iteration of a Bush-style “coalition of the willing.” Then NATO made clear it would not participate, and the Arab League refused to endorse a military strike. France may stay in Obama’s corner, but that won’t be enough.

And Congress was getting restive, with more than 200 members signing one or another letter demanding that the White House consult with them.  Too many pesky journalists were reprinting Obama’s own words from 2007, when then-candidate Obama told the  Boston Globe that “the President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

All of that led to the drive towards war slowing a bit. But it didn’t stop. And that’s a problem. Because whatever Congress may decide, a U.S. military strike against Syria will still be illegal, immoral and dangerous, even reckless in the region and around the world. Congress needs to say NO.

ILLEGAL

However frustrated U.S. presidents may be with the UN Security Council’s occasional refusal to give in to their pressure, the law is clear. The United Nations Charter, the fundamental core of international law, may be vague about a lot of things.  But it is unequivocal about when military force is legal, and when it isn’t. Only two things make an act of war legal: immediate self-defense, which clearly is not the case for the U.S.  The horrific reality of chemical weapons devastated Syrian, not American lives. This is not self-defense. The other is if the Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, authorizes the use of force in response to a threat to international peace and security. That’s the authorization President Obama knows he cannot get – certainly Russia and China would veto, but right now a British veto would certainly be a possibility if Cameron wanted to respond to his public. And it’s not at all clear a U.S. resolution to use force would even get the nine necessary votes of the 15 Council members. The U.S. is thoroughly isolated internationally.

Pages

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next page »

Why Coca-Cola's New Ad Campaign May Be Dangerous to Your Health

Coke has rolled out an ad campaign, disguised as public service announcements. Here's what you should know.

Photo Credit: ronstik/ Shutterstock.com

August 29, 2013  |  

 

 

 

 

It was laughable when Coca-Cola launched a campaign to fight obesity. And even more laughable when the king of soda’s anti-obesity campaign shifted all the blame for those extra pounds to lack of exercise and chairs (yes,chairs). 

But now, the company that donated $1.7 million to defeat last year’s GMO labeling initiative in California has gone from laughable to dangerous. In the wake ofdeclining sales of its Diet Coke brand, Coke has rolled out an ad campaign carefully and deceptively crafted to convince consumers that aspartame, the artificial sweetener (whose patent was at one time owned by Monsanto) in Diet Coke, is a “healthy alternative” to sugar.

The new campaign, being tested in the Atlanta and Chicago markets, takes the form of full-page advertisements disguised as public service announcements. The message? Don’t believe all that bad stuff you’ve heard about aspartame. Aspartame is perfectly safe. It’s better for you than sugar. Drinking Diet Coke will help you stay thin and healthy.

It’s a sweet story, concocted by the marketing wizards at Coke who are desperate to keep the diet soda money train rolling. But it’s not true. Multiple studies, including one published in 2010 by the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine have concluded just the opposite. Aspartame, they say, actually contributes to weight gain by stimulating your appetite. Other studies have revealed that aspartame increases carbohydrate cravings and stimulates fat storage and weight gain.

The link between aspartame and increased weight gain is old news. So is the fact that aspartame, far from being a “healthy alternative” to sugar or anything else, has for years been the focus of studies declaring it unequivocally unhealthy, and suggesting that it has no place in our food supply. Aspartame has been linked tobrain cancer and to the accumulation of formaldehyde, known to cause gradual damage to the nervous system, the immune system and to cause irreversible genetic damage at long-term, low-level exposure.

In1995, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA)  documented 92 aspartame-related symptoms, including migraines, memory loss, seizures, obesity, infertility, dizziness, change in seizures, fatigue, neurological problems and a host of others.

Aspartame is not food. It’s defined as a synthetic compound of two amino acids (l-aspartyl-l-phenylalanine  o-methyl ester). The compound was discovered accidentally in 1965, by James M. Schlatter, a chemist at G.D. Searle Company. Schlatter was testing an anti-ulcer drug. When he licked his finger and discovered that his concoction tasted sweet, the market for artificial sweeteners was born.

Is aspartame safe? Not according to multiple studies conducted over decades. And, at one time, not according to the FDA. In 1975, the FDA put a hold on aspartame’s approval, citing deficiencies in the studies conducted by Searle and its contractors. An analysis of 164 studies of aspartame’s potential impact on human safety found that of the 90 non-industry-sponsored studies, 83 identified one or more problems with aspartame. Of the 74 industry-sponsored studies, all 74 claimed that aspartame was safe.

So how did aspartame get into our food supply? We have Donald Rumsfeld, former U.S. Secretary of Defense to thank. In 1981, Rumsfeld, who had previously served as CEO of Searle, hand-picked Reagan’s new FDA commissioner, Arthur Hayes Hull, Jr. It was Hull who ultimately gave aspartame the green light.

Here’s how it went down. On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan's inauguration, Searle re-applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame as a sweetener in beverages. Hull, the brand new FDA commissioner, recommended by Rumsfeld, appointed a five-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry's prior decision. (A board of inquiry had been formed in 1975 when the FDA first questioned the validity of Searle’s studies on aspartame). When it became clear that the Scientific Commission was on track to uphold the 1975 ban by a 3-2 decision, Hull installed a sixth member on the commission. That led to a deadlocked vote. Hull then personally cast the tie-breaking vote. Voila. Aspartame was approved.

Pages

• 1
• 2
• Next page »

What Whistle Blower and Former High Level Executive Michael Winston Knows About Bankers Crimes Will Horrify You

Winston is one of Wall Street’s greatest enemies -- he's the man who knows too much.

August 28, 2013  |  

 

You may know Michael Winston’s story from a series of articles by  Gretchen Morgenson in the New York Times, or from a celebrated Frontline episode, “ The Untouchables,” about the lack of prosecutions on Wall Street. He was a Ph.D. who rose to the corporate elite, with stints at Lockheed Martin, McDonnell Douglas, Motorola and Merrill Lynch. He was recruited to mortgage originator Countrywide Financial with the promise that it wanted to become the “Goldman Sachs of the Pacific,” a full-service global financial corporation.

“They talked about the importance of ethics and principles, and they said they heard I was a high-integrity guy,” Winston tells Salon, noting his father had a vanity plate that read “HONOR.” Winston initially succeeded as enterprise chief leadership officer at Countrywide, getting promoted twice in 14 months and building a team of 200 working on corporate strategy.

But he could not ignore the rot at the heart of the company’s profitmaking approach.

So now, a successful high-level executive for 30 years, he has been embroiled in seven years of lawsuits with Countrywide and the company that bought it, Bank of America. His determination to speak out against multiple violations of law at Countrywide earned him retaliation, and eventually, he was frozen out of corporate boardrooms, unable to find a new job. He won a jury verdict in his case, but after two and a half more years of fighting, an appellate court reversed the ruling in highly unusual circumstances.

“I keep hearing about whistle-blower protections,” he tells Salon, exasperatedly. “It certainly didn’t happen for me.”

Now, Bank of America wants to gouge Michael Winston one last time, demanding an interest payment on money awarded to him that he never received.

“Thus far, the person who did the right thing got punished, and the person who did the wrong thing got rewarded,” Winston said. The chilling case shows that the greatest enemy for Wall Street is the man or woman who actually tries to expose its secrets.

* * *

“FUND-EM.” That’s what the license plate read when Winston pulled into Countrywide headquarters at the end of 2005. It was the car of CEO Angelo Mozilo. “What does that mean?” Winston asked a colleague.

“That’s Mozilo’s growth strategy for 2006,” his colleague replied. “We fund all loans.”

“What if the borrower has no job?” Winston asked.

“Fund ‘em.”

“What if they have no assets?”

“Fund ‘em.”

“No income?”

“If they can fog a mirror, we’ll give them a loan.”

Winston relayed his fears about this doomed strategy to Drew Gissinger, head of Countrywide Home Loans, offering proposals on how to prioritize customer satisfaction and strong fundamentals over making dicey loans. “I was trying to save Countrywide from itself,” Winston said. These proposals were politely taken and discarded. Later Gissinger would say he never received them.

A separate triggering event had nothing to do with loans, but how Countrywide treated its employees. In addition to selling toxic mortgages, Countrywide also housed its staff in toxic buildings. One in particular, on Tapo Canyon Road in Simi Valley, Calif., was notorious for noxious air, exposed wiring and a generally hideous atmosphere. Winston worked in this building, and he and his team experienced shortness of breath, dizziness and headaches. One female employee, 35 weeks pregnant, said she was afraid to work there. Michael himself was struck by a toxic substance coming from an overhead air vent. “I thought I was being poisoned,” he said. This is at a company that made $2.7 billion in net revenue in 2006.

Keep reading -> 2

‘Two American Families’

Since 1992, Bill Moyers has been following the story of these two middle-class families — one black, one white — as they battle to keep from sliding into poverty. He first met the Stanleys and Neumanns when they were featured in his 1990 documentary Minimum Wages: The New Economy. The families were revisited in 1995 for Living on the Edge, and again in 2000 for Surviving the Good Times.
Bill Moyers revisited his reports on the Stanleys and Neumanns and talked about issues raised with authors Barbara Miner and Barbara Garson on the July 5 episode of Moyers & Company, “Surviving the New American Economy.”

Wal-Mart to DC: We'll Skip Town Before We Pay a Living Wage

Wal-Mart threatens to abandon Washington DC if living wage bill passes. Communities say 'good riddance!'

- Sarah Lazare

(Photo: Techno Buffalo)Wal-Mart executives claim they will slam the brakes on plans to open six mega-stores in Washington DC if the city council passes a living-wage bill that would force billion dollar retailers to pay workers at least $12.50 an hour.
Wal-Mart officials spread the 'threat' in a massive Tuesday public relations blitz, reaching out to city council members and publishing an op-ed in the Washington Post.
The PR maneuvers appear to be timed to influence a Washington DC city council final decision Wednesday on a 'living-wage' bill that would mandate that city retailers—with buildings greater than 75,000 square feet and with corporate sales over one billion dollars—pay an elevated minimum wage.
Wal-Mart general manager Alex Barren charged that the local bill is "discriminatory" and "discourages investment in Washington."
Community groups scoff at the large multinational's public tantrum at the elevated minimum wage, in a city beset with severe unemployment, poverty and wage inequality. Parisa Norouzi, Executive Director of community organization Empower DC, told Common Dreams:

We know that the cost of housing in this city has become so high that someone working at minimum wage would have to work 140 hours a week to afford the average market rate unit. They would have to earn $29 an hour to afford average rate at 40 hours. Pay of $12.50 is very little to ask, in context of how much [Wal-Mart] would earn and draw out of our city to send to their corporate headquarters.

Many Washington DC community members and workers—who deride the company's discriminatory employment and development practices and atrocious human rights record—would be happy to see the retailer go.
"We have opposed Wal-Mart from beginning because of their poverty wages, horrible healthcare, efforts to prevent workers from organizing and unionizing, and because of the Walden family's dedication to using money and power to influence other kinds of harmful policies like promoting privatization of public education," Norouzi declared.
"Furthermore, the building of six Wal-Mart stores would spell out the end of black-owned businesses in our city."
A large coalition of unions and community organizations along with Washington DC Jobs with Justice have been mobilizing for months to win a boosted minimum wage. Some local organizers suspect Wal-Mart is bluffing and worry that local city officials with close ties to the multinational corporation will undermine the living wage bill.

In 'Chilling' Ruling, Chevron Granted Access to Activists' Private Internet Data

"Sweeping" subpoena violates rights of those who spoke out against oil giant's devastating actions in Ecuador

- Lauren McCauley

 

Following their guilty sentence for the dumping of 18.5bn gallons of toxic waste in the Ecuadorian Amazon, Chevron is amassing the personal information of the environmentalists and attorneys who fought against them in an effort to prove 'conspiracy.' (Photo: Rainforest Action Network/ cc/ Flickr)The US government is not the only entity who, with judicial approval, is amassing massive amounts of personal information against their so-called enemies.
A federal judge has ruled to allow Chevron, through a subpoena to Microsoft, to collect the IP usage records and identity information for email accounts owned by over 100 environmental activists, journalists and attorneys.
The oil giant is demanding the records in an attempt to cull together a lawsuit which alleges that the company was the victim of a conspiracy in the $18.2 billion judgment against it for dumping 18.5 billion gallons of oil waste in the Ecuadorean Amazon, causing untold damage to the rainforest.
The "sweeping" subpoena was one of three issued to Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft.
"Environmental advocates have the right to speak anonymously and travel without their every move and association being exposed to Chevron," said Marcia Hofmann, Senior Staff Attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who—along with environmental rights group EarthRights International (ERI)—had filed a motion last fall to "quash" the subpoenas.
"These sweeping subpoenas create a chilling effect among those who have spoken out against the oil giant's activities in Ecuador," she added at the time.
According to ERI, the subpoena demands the personal information about each account holder as well as the IP addresses associated with every login to each account over a nine-year period. "This could allow Chevron to determine the countries, states, cities or even buildings where the account-holders were checking their email," they write, "so as to 'infer the movements of the users over the relevant period and might permit Chevron to makes inferences about some of the user’s professional and personal relationships.'"
In their statement about the ruling, ERI notes that the argument given by presiding US District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan—who was previously accused of prejudice against the Ecuadorians and their lawyers—was as "breathtaking as the subpoena itself." They continue:

According to Judge Kaplan, none of the account holders could benefit from First Amendment protections since the account holders had “not shown that they were U.S. citizens.”
Now, let’s break this down. The account-holders in this case were proceeding anonymously, which the First Amendment permits. Because of this, Judge Kaplan was provided with no information about the account holders’ residency or places of birth. It is somewhat amazing then, that Judge Kaplan assumed that the account holders were not US citizens. As far as I know, a judge has never before made this assumption when presented with a First Amendment claim. We have to ask then: on what basis did Judge Kaplan reach out and make this assumption?

Imprisoned CIA Whistleblower Gives Advice to Snowden

"Everyone is corrupt, I've come to learn."

Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com

July 12, 2013  |  

 

John Kiriakou, the former CIA officer who blew the whistle on Bush’s torture program and is now in prison, sent an open letter to Edward Snowden last week warning him not to trust the FBI.

“DO NOT,” Kiriakou wrote, “under any circumstances, cooperate with the FBI. FBI agents will lie, trick, and deceive you. They will twist your words and play on your patriotism to entrap you. They will pretend to be people they are not – supporters, well-wishers, and friends – all the while wearing wires to record your out-of-context statements to use against you. The FBI is the enemy; it’s part of the problem, not the solution.”
These are the words of a registered Republican who voted for Gary Johnson, whom the Rosenberg Fund for Children denied a grant, informing him that he wasn’t “liberal enough,” Kiriakou says, for the award — and who last year received a birthday card from Jerry Falwell Jr.
Kiriakou is the first CIA veteran to be imprisoned. It was after he blew the whistle on Bush’s torture program that the CIA, FBI and Justice Department came down on him, at first charging him with aiding the enemy and later convicting him of disclosing the identities of undercover colleagues at the CIA.
The FBI raided his house in the process. They took his computers. They also took his family photos because, they said, he could have embedded secret messages in them.
“I did not start this thing with the idea that I was going to be a whistle-blower,” Kiriakou told Salon in December, two months before being sent off to a low-security prison in Loretto, Pa., with a 30-month sentence.
I interviewed Kiriakou for about an hour and half at that time, a couple of months before he went to prison, waiting to publish it until he was well into serving his sentence. The idea was to outline the slope of his descent – his journey from the powerful to the powerless.
“In this weird, roundabout way,” he told me then, “the Justice Department, the FBI and the CIA made me the anti-torture guy, which I never set out to be … But over the years,” despite the initial intentions, “my feelings have grown stronger and stronger” against torture, “that torture is not right under any circumstances.”
Recruited by the CIA while in graduate school, Kiriakou spent most of his life on the side of the establishment, leading raids against top al-Qaida officials in Pakistan as the chief of counterterrorism operations, including the one in which Abu Zubaydah was captured.
He had said in an ABC interview with Brian Ross that al-Qaida members “hate us more than they love life,” that they wanted to kill every American and every Jew because, he said, it’s just who they are.
That was also the interview in which Kiriakou pissed off the power establishment, becoming the whistle-blower he had never set out to be. He was on Ross’ show defending himself against allegations that he, personally, had tortured Zubaydah. But what he didn’t know was that torture as a state policy had never been confirmed in any official capacity, even though everyone in Washington knew about it.
Five years before, in 2002, Kiriakou had never heard of “enhanced interrogation techniques.” He’d just left Greece where he was doing counterterrorism work when the CIA decided to move him to a different office in Pakistan. In the interim, a fellow CIA officer approached Kiriakou and said that they were going to use some of these interrogation techniques on Zubaydah.

Pages

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next page »

View as a single page

Snowden Calls Out for Justice and Support: 'I Did What I Believed Right'

NSA whistleblower officially accepts all asylum offers, and asks for continued support from international community and human rights campaigners

- Jon Queally

Edward Snowden along with Sarah Harrison of WikiLeaks (left) at a meeting with human rights campaigners in Sheremetyevo airport in Moscow on Friday. (Photograph: Tanya Lokshina/Human Rights Watch)"I did the right thing."
That's what NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden said Friday at a meeting held at the Sheremetyevo airport in Moscow where he sat down with representatives from international human rights groups to explain his case and ask for their support.
"I did what I believed right and began a campaign to correct this wrongdoing," Snowden said to those gathered at the meeting.
"I took what I knew to the public, so what affects all of us can be discussed by all of us in the light of day, and I asked the world for justice." –Edward Snowden
"I did not seek to enrich myself," he said. "I did not seek to sell US secrets. I did not partner with any foreign government to guarantee my safety. Instead, I took what I knew to the public, so what affects all of us can be discussed by all of us in the light of day, and I asked the world for justice."
"That moral decision to tell the public about spying that affects all of us has been costly," Snowden continued, "but... I have no regrets."
In addition, Snowden clarified that his asylum status remained perilous. Though he formally accepted all offers of asylum that have been granted him so far—including Russia's—Snowdent said that until he can travel without fear the US will attempt to capture him, his rights are being unlawfully abridged.
"As we have seen, however, some governments in Western European and North American states have demonstrated a willingness to act outside the law," he said, making a clear reference to the forced landing of Bolivian President Evo Morales' airplane earlier this month. "This unlawful threat makes it impossible for me to travel to Latin America and enjoy the asylum granted there in accordance with our shared rights."
Sergei Nikitin, head of Amnesty International's Moscow office, was at the meeting and said his organization was please to reiterate its previously stated support for Snowden in person.
“We will continue to pressure governments to ensure his rights are respected - this includes the unassailable right to claim asylum wherever he may choose," Nikitin said. “What he has disclosed is patently in the public interest and as a whistleblower his actions were justified. He has exposed unlawful sweeping surveillance programmes that unquestionably interfere with an individual’s right to privacy."
He said that US behavior so far has been an affront to international protections for asylum seekers and an attack on the freedom of expression.
“Instead of addressing or even owning up to these blatant breaches, the US government is more intent on persecuting him. Attempts to pressure governments to block his efforts to seek asylum are deplorable,” he concluded.
Common Dreams has posted his full statement here, but the Guardian provided this breakdown of key points (bolding theirs):

• He said that his revelations of his professional “capability without any warrant to search for, seize, and read your communications, anyone’s communications, at any time” had drawn attention to “a serious violations of the law”, under the US constitution and the universal declaration of human rights. He hit back at US claims that secret court rulings legalised such surveillance, saying: “These rulings simply corrupt the most basic notion of justice – that it must be seen to be done.”
• He invoked the second world war and the crimes of the Nazis by claiming he was acting according to principles set down at the Nuremburg trials, namely that individuals have a duty to humanity over and above their duty to their country. “individual citizens have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring,” he said.
• Snowden said that he had not aimed to enrich himself by passing on his secrets, and nor had he “partnered” with any foreign government to guarantee his safety.
• He said the US had violated international laws in putting pressure on other countries not to take him in, something he said represented a threat to “the basic rights shared by every person, every nation, to live free from persecution, and to seek and enjoy asylum”.
• He said nations including Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador had offered him asylum and said he accepted all of the offers and any others he may be given in the future. Referring specifically to Venezuela, he said his “asylee status” was now formal and said no country had a right to limit his right to take up that offer. But because of the “unlawful threat” of the US and European countries it was currently “impossible” for him to travel to Latin America to take up such an offer.
• He asked Human Rights Watch and Amnesty to assist him in securing guarantees of safe passage to Latin America, and to help him with his asylum request to Moscow.

Oscar López Rivera: After 32 Years in Prison, Calls Grow for Release of Puerto Rican Activist

Hundreds of Puerto Ricans rallied this week to call for the United States to release the Puerto Rican independence activist Oscar López Rivera. Wednesday marked his 32nd year in prison. In 1981, López was convicted on federal charges, including seditious conspiracy — conspiring to oppose U.S. authority over Puerto Rico by force. He was accused of being a member of the FALN, the Armed Forces of National Liberation, which claimed responsibility for more than 100 bombings to call attention to the colonial case of Puerto Rico. In 1999 President Bill Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of the FALN, but López refused to accept the deal because it did not include two fellow activists who have since been released. In a rare video recording from prison, López said the charges against him were strictly political. Calls are increasing for López to be released from Nobel Peace Laureate South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu to Eduardo Bhatia, president of the Puerto Rican Senate. To talk more about the case, we speak with Luis Nieves Falcón, a renowned Puerto Rican lawyer, sociologist, and educator. He is the editor of the new book of López’s letters and reflections called, "Oscar López Rivera: Between Torture and Resistance." We also talk with Matt Meyer, long-time member of the War Resisters League. TRANSCRIPT This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form. AMY GOODMAN: In the next segment, we’ll be going to the clinic of George Tiller in Wichita, Kansas, four years after he was murdered. But right now we turn to another issue and another anniversary. Juan? JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, hundreds of Puerto Ricans rallied this week to call for the United States to release Puerto Rican independence activist Oscar López Rivera. Wednesday marked his 32nd year in prison. In 1981, López was convicted on federal charges, including seditious conspiracy—conspiring to oppose U.S. authority over Puerto Rico by force. He was accused of being a member of the FALN, the Armed Forces of National Liberation, which claimed responsibility for more than 100 bombings to call attention to the colonial case of Puerto Rico. In 1999, President Bill Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of the FALN, but López refused to accept the deal because it did not include two fellow activists who have since been released. In a rare video recording from prison, Oscar López Rivera said the charges against him were strictly political. OSCAR LÓPEZ RIVERA: I think the fact that I was charged with seditious conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States speaks for itself. But the charge in reference to Puerto Ricans has always been used for political purposes. It goes back to 1936. The first time that a group of Puerto Ricans was put in prison was by using the seditious conspiracy charge. And this has always been a strictly political charge used against Puerto Ricans. JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Calls are increasing for Oscar López Rivera to be released. Eduardo Bhatia, president of the Puerto Rican Senate, recently sent a letter to President Barack Obama asking that López’s sentence be commuted. In 2011, Nobel Peace Laureate Mairead Corrigan Maguire of Northern Ireland, Adolfo Pérez Esquivel of Argentina, and Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa wrote to Obama after López was denied parole. This is Archbishop Desmond Tutu. DESMOND TUTU: After more than 30 years, Oscar López Rivera is in prison for the crime of seditious conspiracy, conspiring to free his people from the shackles of imperial injustice. Now is the time for his immediate and unconditional release. In working for reconciliation and peace, we once again feel compelled to repeat the biblical call of Isaiah to set free those who are bound. May God bless all of us in our efforts for justice with peace. SHOW FULL TRANSCRIPT ›

Inside Taliban Bankers

n Afghanistan, the lines between Taliban finance and legitimate commerce are often blurred. Reuters Special Correspondent Matthew Green takes us through the clandestine world of the currency dealers suspected of secretly funding the insurgency. Photos by Ahmad Nadeem and Mohammad Ismail.

Colleen LaRose, an American who became radicalized online, plotted to kill Swedish artist Lars Vilks, whom she believed blasphemed the Prophet Mohammad. LaRose's mission would take her to Ireland, where she wanted to train for her jihad. (Part 2) Produced by Andrew Lampard; edited by Christian Lesperance 

Living in a National Security State

After more than a year of research and in-depth interviews, the newest documentary from producer and director Robert Greenwald and Brave New Foundations, War on Whistleblowers: Free Press and the National Security State highlights the stories of four individuals who were compelled to reveal grave acts of government illegality and violations to the U.S. constitution during the explosion of the military industrial complex followed by 9/11. Whistleblowers, Journalist and Experts, such as Michael DeKort, Bill Keller, Jane Mayer, Franz Gayl, and Thomas Tamm, share what happens when the government turns its back on the people they’re sworn to protect and punishes those who stand up to defend the constitution.
Visit www.waronwhistleblowers.com for more information on screenings.

Please Remove Your Shoes

About the Movie Please Remove Your Shoes is a revealing documentary about broken government process. It is also an empathetic story about a half dozen public servants who try to fix it. And it is a familiar topic to all of us who have flown in the last fifteen years: the security routine at the airport - first the FAA and now the TSA. Please Remove Your Shoes examines the period before 911 and the current situation eight years later and asks the questions that make Washington squirm: “Are we really any better for all our money spent? Or is it safe to say that nothing has changed? The answers come in excoriating detail in places, and by unnerving implication in others. Direct disobedience of agency charter, subversion of management practices, and terrifying abuse of power and secrecy become the film’s markers for the superagency charged with protecting us on airplanes. With testimony from some of the original congressional lawmakers who have created TSA to the federal air marshals, screeners, and testing agents who “served” it, you’ll wonder if we weren’t actually safer before 911, as they reveal their personal stories about a government agency run amok, which lies and covers up its oversights as frequently as it makes them. Vivid HD visuals and undercover recordings add grit and realism to the personal horror stories of the “cast.” The film leaves no doubt that we need a better system to watch over our transportation. But the unsettling feeling that occurs to most is a sense of broader familiarity with the sins of this agency that look disconcertingly similar to the crimes of others. Who will watch our watchdogs? Flying in an airplane will never be the same after you’ve watched Please Remove Your Shoes. History of the Project As an aviation publisher frustrated with inconsistent regulation of competitors to his publishing constituency, Fred Gevalt sued the Federal Aviation Administration in 1998. He lost the suit, but managed to prevail politically, and the FAA was forced to write new regulation to accommodate the problem. This was his personal education about the capriciousness and irresponsibility of executive branch agencies and the damage they can do to commerce and society at large. Upon the sale of his business in 2006 and departure as publisher in 2007, Gevalt began worrying about the unusual rise in influence and size of the Transportation Security Administration, the agency developed after 9/11 to provide airport security. He wanted to write a book. But realizing that documentary film has attained a significant following as entertainment and social commentary, he decided to film first, and write later. In recognition of the familiar airport process, both the film and the book are entitled “Please Remove Your Shoes.” As a two-person crew, Gevalt and his daughter Emelie (and later Co-Producer Lorraine Pouliot) Please Remove Your Shoes criss-crossed the US many times for interviews of people from media and security experts to former air marshals, FAA security agents, and others.



After a year of initial documentary research and interviewing, however, it became clear that the topic of security was too complex to cover completely in a ninety-minute movie. Efforts to tell the TSA story bogged down with the “back stories” of the sociology of fear, economic impact, and media involvement. Gevalt found himself essentially writing a book “on camera.” He also realized that a stronger, simpler, and more dramatic story was necessary to retain the audience’s interest. So the beginning of 2009 saw the project reignited with an expanded crew, including a writer, director, editor, and full production crew. Hiring Rob DelGaudio and BlackPearl Productions of Hopkinton, Massachusetts to take over the preproduction, production, and postproduction, the new organization decided to begin the filming all over with an emphasis on visuals, more dynamic interviews, and a story focus on the civil servants that FAA and TSA had employed through the period 1995 – 2005. A new period of discovery has accompanied the second effort, with a drive to get to the bottom of TSA’s creation by Congress, and deep inside the heart of a bureaucracy that seems to care more about its public image than the mission it was charged to accomplish. Please Remove Your Shoes looks at the way a key federal “super agency” was conceived, developed, and managed, as seen through the eyes of some very interesting and patriotic individuals who are in a position to know the truth. The video discoveries of 2008, while more obscure, and often more abstract have not been put aside.

You can make a difference.
The Issue
There is something Un-American about the Transportation Security Administration: It is heavy handed, it violates at least three Amendments to the US Constitution. It is rigid and inflexible. It is managed by unmotivated career bureaucrats. It is lazy and ineffective. And we're not getting what we paid for.

The Opportunity
One third of the US Senate and the entire House of Representatives must be re-elected in November of 2010.  The “Christmas Bomber” of 2009 revealed the absurd ineffectiveness and complacency of TSA. Through distribution and promotion of Please Remove Your Shoes and its message, we will launch an active effort to lobby congress for realistic change and tighter control of a super agency run amok.
With intense criticism of this agency’s operation and massive sensitivities about government spending in general, the political climate is ideal for curbing abuse and waste by TSA.  Distribution of the movie to Congress and the White House can be expected to at least put this topic on their agenda.

The Effort
Certain congressional groups like The House Transportation Subcommittee will be canvassed as early as possible in an effort to get the subject of air security reform onto their agendas early in the re-election process.
A majority of the effort for the cause will be education of the public to bear pressure on their representatives. In addition to movie screenings nationwide, presentations at organizations like Rotary Club will be held, with tailored edits of Please Remove Your Shoes  in illustration of the problems of current TSA practices.  
The Suggestions to Congress
Reread the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission. Give us a solution that works, is proportionate to the threat, and keep it that way - no more “mission creep.” Clarify the roles of “deterrence” and “interdiction” in aviation security, and see that TSA and the intelligence agencies are properly involved and understand which role they have.

1) Establish and enforce tough proficiency standards.
2) Emphasize results, scrap the PR.
3) Recruit the right people, with intelligence and integrity - train and test them frequently.
4) Promote based on performance.
5) Decentralize decision making - encourage local problem solving.
6) Admit mistakes and shortcomings - then fix them.
7) Keep terrorists off balance with flexible, changing tactics.
8) Identify realistic threats and dangerous people.
9) Design practical and effective countermeasures.
10) Motivate TSA management to set and achieve meaningful goals.
11) Clear out bureaucratic survivors.

 

We need your help to fix aviation security.

Help us regain control of our government and remind congress that American citizens must be involved in the process. In addition to the expense of producing Please Remove Your Shoes, Boston Aviation Services, Inc. an individually financed Massachusetts Corp. has the burden of self distribution. Make life a little easier and a little safer the next time you go to the airport!  While contributions must be treated as all political contributions (not tax deductible) your financial participation in this cause will help us get the job done.
Call or email your congressmen, and send them paraphrased versions of these suggestions.  Demand a response.  Follow-up again to see whether anything has been done. Offer to host and organize a screening.  Contribute- to help us expand the distribution of Please Remove Your Shoes. 
Keep in touch via our website to learn of progress made at fixing America's aviation security system.