Showing posts with label victims. Show all posts
Showing posts with label victims. Show all posts

Monday, June 22, 2015

Pressure Builds for South Carolina to Take Down the Confederate Flag ~ Update: Nikki Haley Presser

 photo Confederate - Southern-Fried-Rabbit-02.jpg

Previous Related Post:
The Charleston AME Church Massacre
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In the sad wake of the Charleston deaths at the hand of racist Dylann Roof, Twitter exploded over the weekend with calls for Governor Nikki Haley and the South Carolina House of Representatives to move quickly and take down the emblem of hate, the Confederate Flag, standing just outside the State House in Columbia.

From CNN
. . . while U.S. flags have been lowered, the Confederate battle flag remains high -- even padlocked into place.
Why?
It is a matter of state law.
Back in 2000, civil rights activists successfully lobbied to have a much larger Confederate flag removed from the Capitol dome. But there was a compromise. The South Carolina Heritage Act decreed that just about all other tributes to Confederate history would be virtually untouchable. The only way to change anything of that nature -- including the smaller flag that was erected on the State House lawn -- would be to gain the endorsement of two-thirds of lawmakers.



 photo Charleston-Flag1.jpg

















Update: Monday, June 22, 2015

Word is spreading that Governor Nikki Haley will announce at 4 p.m. that the flag will come down.

UPDATE: Nikki Haley announced that there would be a push for the South Carolina House and Senate to take down the flag this summer:


The Charleston AME Church Massacre

 photo Charleston-DylannRoof.png

Last Wednesday evening a white man named Dylann Roof walked into a Bible Study at Emmanuel AME Church in historic Charleston. He sat quietly for some time, appearing to listen to the religious message, before standing up and shooting nine innocent people while terrorizing the survivors with racist statements.

Later it was discovered that Dylann Roof had been planning some kind of attack for months, and had told his drinking buddies that whites needed to kill the blacks and bring back segregation. He later said he almost didn't shoot anyone at the church because they were so nice to him, but his evil purpose overcame any conscience he had (if any). But we don't have to guess at his reasons because Roof wrote an online manifesto stating his plan and why he chose that church:













A week later the sorrow still simmers across the nation, as families plan funerals and calls rise up from all sides to take down the festering symbol of racism that is the Confederate Battle Flag. But I deal with the flag controversy in a separate post. The rest of this post is about the victims and their families.






























Sunday, June 7, 2015

Duggar Sisters Downplay Abuse from Brother

 photo bc2c5027-46ee-45f8-bfde-7052f69b34bf.jpg

Previous Related Posts:
Excuses, Excuses: The Duggar Interview On Fox
TLC's Duggar Family Has an Incest Problem

~~~~~~~


The Duggar Denial continued on Friday night as the sisters of Josh Duggar took to Fox News and sought to minimize the impact of his abuse.



From Zerofiltered
Jessa Duggar said her brother was “a young boy in puberty” who was “a little too curious about girls.”
After the fondling, the sisters said, their parents restricted the children from playing games like hide and seek and placed locks on bedrooms where the girls and boys slept separately. Jill Duggar said she was 12 when the abuse occurred, and Jessa Duggar said she was 9 or 10. Both women are now married.
Jessa Duggar said that she wanted to defend her brother against people who call him a child molester, pedophile or rapist. She said people can get angry at her for saying this is overboard, “but I can say this because I was one of the victims.”
“He made some bad choices,” she said. “But really the extent of it was mild, inappropriate touching, on fully clothed victims, most of it while girls were sleeping.”



Josh was "sly and subtle" which is another way of saying he was creeping around like a devious deviant.

Transcript Via Alternet
JESSA DUGGAR SEEWALD: No. I think for us our situation is so different than most girls in that he was — he’s very subtle anyway. Like he knew in his mind my actions are wrong and I have bad intentions but he was very sly, like the girls didn’t catch on, you know. It was like, okay, if you catch the girl sleeping, you know, like a quick feel or whatever. Or it’s like, you know, if you’re just not really aware, you know, in the situation that happened when the girls were awake, it’s like they weren’t aware what was happening. It was very subtle. And so I think that for us it’s like, okay, we realize this is serious — but at the same time it wasn’t like a horror story or like this terrible thing.

And this unintentionally tragic interchange :(

KELLY: . . . What were the safeguards that were put into place just to make sure?

JILL DUGGAR DILLARD: I was going to say not, you know, being alone. My parents said, okay, we’re not going to do this hide and seek thing where two people go off and hide together — and not baby-sitting the girls.

KELLY: At night in your room?

DILLARD: Locks on the doors, you know, everybody’s in bed, girls in the girls’ room, boys in the boys’ room. And so, yes. And as a mother now, I look back and I think, you know, my parents did such an amazing job. For me, even when we went through the DHS investigation, they complimented my parents on what an amazing job they did through that process. And so, I think not only taking the legal actions that they did and then going the extra mile and I see as a mom I hope that I can set the same safeguards in my family that they did and, you know, reaching the heart of their children. And not only trying to take care of Josh but us girls.











Thursday, June 4, 2015

Excuses, Excuses ~ The Duggar Interview on Fox

 photo Duggar-Interview.png

Previous Related Posts:
TLC's Duggar Family Has an Incest Problem
Huckabee Jokes that Transgenders Want to Shower with Opposite Sex
Fox's Megyn Kelly Tells Kids that Jesus was White, Just Like Santa Claus

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Duggar parents were interviewed by Fox host Megyn Kelly last night, and it was pretty much a train wreck. In their world of delusions, the Duggar parents think if they keep repeating that their son Josh is a "reformed" child molester - as if that is even possible - then the fans will believe and help them keep their show on The Learning Channel.

Of course they chose the sympathetic Fox News for the interview - the channel least likely to call them out on bullsh*t.

And if the parents' intervew wasn't bad enough, some of the Duggar girls who were victimized as children have also been interviewed by Kelly, and that will be broadcast this Friday. Of course these brainwashed young ladies are making excuses for Big Brother, saying folks should just chill out over Josh Duggar's predatory nature. Jesus forgave him, blah blah, and so did they.

According to their Daddy Jim-Bob Duggar on Fox, the girls "didn't know anything about it because they were asleep" and the touching was mostly "on top of their clothes." So what? That is still rape, you idiot! I think any kids still at home with these people are at risk, and it would be great if the state of Arkansas would get a clue and rescue them.

One of the worst questions asked by Kelly was whether the Duggars felt they were making a "Sophie's Choice," referring to the referring to the 1982 Film and William Styron's novel about a woman in a concentration camp having to choose to save one child or another. What Kelly missed with that question is that in "Sophie's Choice," both children were innocent victims, but in the case of the Duggars, one child was molesting the other children. Josh Duggar wasn't innocent, and it happened multiple times. The protection given by his parents was as much to save their own reputations and TV show as it was to save their firstborn son, while throwing the daughters under the bus. There is still no mention of how much counseling these very young girls were given, or how devastated they were. It's all about the parents and Josh - the true victims of "Christian Bashing" according to Kelly. It's beyond the beyond of the beyond!!!!

From Fox News
“I think as parents, we felt we’re failures, you know?” Duggar said as she sat down with her husband Jim Bob at their Arkansas home for an exclusive interview on “The Kelly File.”
Asked by Kelly if they thought the backlash against the family had been greater because of what they stood for, including their Christian beliefs, Jim Bob replied, “I think, you know what, Christianity is not about being perfect or about being a perfect family, but it’s actually about being forgiven….
“People on the outside think, ‘well Christians are supposed to be perfect…’ No, you know what, all of us as Christians we struggle every day.”
. . . “As parents we were trying to do the best thing we knew how,” Michelle said.
. . . Asked why they would launch a television show in 2008 with this episode in the family background, Jim Bob replied, “we had nothing to hide. We’d taken care of all that years before.”

From New York Times
Ms. Kelly also spoke to two of the sisters, Jessa Seewald and Jill Dillard. That interview will air on Friday.
In a clip from Fox News, Ms. Seewald said in the interview that she was one of the victims and that what Josh did was “very wrong.”
“I do want to speak up in his defense against people who are calling him a child molester or a pedophile or a rapist,” she (his sister) said.
“I’m like, that is so overboard and a lie, really,” she added. “I mean people get mad at me for saying that, but I can say this because I was one of the victims.”














My own most popular tweet from last night:



~~~~~~~~~



































Wednesday, October 8, 2014

Right-Wing Troll Todd Kincannon Says Kill the Ebola Victims

 photo BzNQowdIcAAE4fI.jpg

Previous Related Post:
Wingnuts Blame Obama for Ebola Virus Because "African"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Todd Kincannon is a foul-mouthed twitter troll and a lawyer who brags that his family money will get him out of any trouble. He was also once leader of the South Carolina Republican Party, but they have distanced themselves (even though some of them probably love his nasty tweets).

Well, yeah - that guy thinks we ought to just kill the victims of Ebola.

Did I mention he is pro-life?

And really there's no end to his horribleness. Execution for sick people is just the tip of the shit-show with him. He will mention any body part of any human, particularly democrats, used in any vile way on his twitter account, and he's completely shameless about his racism and misogyny. When I read his tweets I am at a loss to understand why anyone would spend their days spreading filth all over twitter, but that's what he has been doing for years now. What a waste of time.












Stephen Colbert had some choice words for him:

My home state of South Carolina has a plan to eradicate this virus. As former executive director of the GOP and current middle school debate club treasurer Tom (Todd) Kincannon tweeted, "The protocol for a positive Ebola test should be immediate humane execution and sanitization of the whole area. That will save lives."

Finally, a way to save lives. Humanely execute the victim.

Of course the shotgun-blast to his chest could spread some bodily fluids. So to be saved, someone will have to compassionately murder whoever executed the patient, and that person of course will have to be sensitively bludgeoned to death by a fourth person, and so on and so on. Until the chain of humane homicide makes it back to whomever wonderful idea this was (shows pic of Todd Kincannon).


Monday, June 23, 2014

Mad Man ~ George Will's Retro-Rape Misogyny

 photo 041712_2235_funwithpete1.jpg

Conservative George Will wrote a column a few weeks ago man-splaining that rape victims on college campuses are getting too much attention from the Obama Administration. Why should our colleges and universities have to bother with sensitivity training, trigger warnings, or the plight of victims themselves?

The job of a university isn't to mollycoddle over-sexed teenagers, by golly! It's to make them read Hamlet!

From George Will's Column June 6, 2014
Colleges and universities are being educated by Washington and are finding the experience excruciating. They are learning that . . . when they make victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges, victims proliferate.
. . . Now the Obama administration is riding to the rescue of “sexual assault” victims. It vows to excavate equities from the ambiguities of the hookup culture, this cocktail of hormones, alcohol and the faux sophistication of today’s prolonged adolescence of especially privileged young adults.
. . . the newest campus idea for preventing victimizations — an idea certain to multiply claims of them — is “trigger warnings.” They would be placed on assigned readings or announced before lectures. Otherwise, traumas could be triggered in students whose tender sensibilities would be lacerated by unexpected encounters with racism, sexism, violence (dammit, Hamlet, put down that sword!) or any other facet of reality that might violate a student’s entitlement to serenity
. . . Academia is learning that its attempts to create victim-free campuses — by making everyone hypersensitive, even delusional, about victimizations — brings increasing supervision by the regulatory state that progressivism celebrates.

With no irony whatsoever, Will brings up a Shakespearean play that has both a male and female character, Hamlet and Ophelia, on the verge of suicide while obsessing over sex. It's pretty damn clear the Bard understood young people much more than George Will does. The whole point of Hamlet - as well as Romeo and Juliet - is that when adults ignore the problems of young people there is hell to pay, for them and for everyone around them. Those plays aren't called "Tragedies" for nothing. Will may think that focusing on the plight of the victim is the psychological equivalent of a selfie on Facebook, but the feelings of those involved is no less true today than 500 years ago when Shakespeare was writing.

 photo 54ba894d-8c98-4c63-8af8-3f587e76931c.jpg

George Will is part of the Mad Men generation of the 1960s. His column could have been written by lothario misogynist Pete Campbell - Girls in mini-skirts and string bikinis are just asking for it. Throw in some hearty college lads with martinis and those sluts deserve whatever they get - Retro-Rape Misogyny at its worst.

In an interview with CSPAN Will refused to back down. Instead he blamed the Internets and our lack of critical thinking, missing the point once again, especially in defending young men accused of sexual assault. It's the age-old argument that male privilege is more important than female privilege, that no young woman should ruin the chances of a future medical student by telling the truth about rape. Will blindly ignores what the effect of rape might be on a young woman's future career as a doctor or lawyer, so he couldn't have been more tone-deaf to the modern world.

Via Washington Post
“Today, for some reason, indignation is the default position for certain people in civic discourse,” Will told interviewer Brian Lamb on C-SPAN, in an interview that will air sometime in July. “They go from a standing start to fury in about 30 seconds.”
The Internet has erased the barriers to public discourse, he said, and “among the barriers to entry that have been reduced [are that] you don’t need to read, write or think. You can just come in and call names and carry on. And we have all kinds of interest groups that think they will get attention . . . if they’re at maximum decibel levels.”
. . . By lowering the bar on such a serious crime, he said, many young men could be “permanently and seriously blighted” by legally unsubstantiated charges. He suggested they could be denied acceptance to medical or law school and that such allegations would invite “litigation of tremendous expense.”

The series Mad Men has shown us innocent Peggy Olson, who was used sexually by her boss, Pete Campbell, then tossed aside, and who has had to scramble her way to the top after giving up her baby. George Will's point is that Campbell's career was more important, whether Peggy had more talent or not. After all, Pete had more to lose - a family and a house in the country. Well, guess what? Misogynists tend to lose all that anyway because they screw around and their wives toss them out, which is what happens to Pete in the series.

But to George Will's generation, Peggy remains a slut, talented or not, end of story. Pregnant out of wedlock, she flees the office and has her baby, not sure of what to do. Meanwhile we get a glimpse of what the men in the office think of her - most believe she was pregnant with Don Draper's baby, but her lover, Pete Campbell stays in denial about his role in the affair, joking that Peggy has gone to a "fat farm." Because what does he care? Out of sight, out of mind, used and forgotten. Which is precisely the point of George Will's column - stop whining and get on with it, you selfish rape victims.

While it's true that Peggy Olson wasn't raped in Mad Men, George Will's advice for victimized young women is the same as Don Draper's advice to Peggy: "This never happened. It will shock you how much this never happened." In 1964 that might have been good advice, given the prejudices of the day. Now, not so much, and finally George Will is getting an education far beyond his 1964 counterparts.



Reaction to Will's Column has been swift and brutal:

Shannon Fisher, Board Member of UniteWomen.Org Wrote:
...The flippant and pompous tone of your piece, and the blatant allegation that there is a tangible (or intangible) benefit to having been sexually victimized, belittles the genuine suffering of the millions of women (and men) who have been raped. I would like to invite you to sit in a room with a sexual assault victim and, to his or her face, dismiss that person’s suffering as having been a means to attain a “coveted status.”

Jen Gunter, an OB-GYN doctor wrote:
You labor under the fear (as some men do) that there is an epidemic of false rape. That good young men will go to jail for consent withdrawn after the fact. And while false accusations likely do happen (the Duke Lacrosse case is a recent, well-known example) these are the exception and not the rule and each time a male with a platform spouts off about a false epidemic of rape it only makes it harder for women who have been violated to come forward.
. . . There is no woman who I have ever met personally or as an OB/GYN who thinks that surviving a rape confers some sort of privilege. I am genuinely curious if you interviewed a few young women hoping to earn their college rape badge or is that just a conclusion you reached looking at the issue of sexual assault through the myopic lens of misogyny?
Come spend a day in my clinic Mr. Will. Come see how the scars of rape linger even decades later.
There is no survivor privilege, just survivors.

From the Office of Dianne Feinstein, signed by three other Senators:
. . . In meetings our offices have held with law enforcement, students, administrators, parents and university officials, we found that the culture on campuses, including harassment by fellow students and college officials, discourages survivors from reporting or seeking much needed services in the wake of a traumatic attack. Additionally, recent legislative and administrative actions at the federal level have received positive feedback from both survivor advocacy groups and institutions of higher education.
Your column suggests that we – including some of us who have worked on this issue for many years – all have missed a subculture on college campuses where survivors of sexual assault are inducted into a privileged class.
The culture you described is so antiquated, so counterintuitive and so contrary to anything we heard that we hope you will make an effort to hear the stories survivors bravely shared with us about the struggles they face in addressing what has happened to them – often with little meaningful assistance from authorities expected to help them. In this instance, your writing, which purports to be based on accurate facts and figures, has not only shown a fundamental disrespect to survivors, but also includes a harmful rhetoric that has made addressing this issue so difficult.
. . .
Sincerely,
Dianne Feinstein
Richard Blumenthal
Tammy Baldwin
Robert P. Casey, Jr.

Because of the column, George Will's column was dropped by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch permanently
Dear Post-Dispatch readers,
Starting today, Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson replaces George Will on Thursdays and Sundays.
. . . The change has been under consideration for several months, but a column published June 5, in which Mr. Will suggested that sexual assault victims on college campuses enjoy a privileged status, made the decision easier. The column was offensive and inaccurate; we apologize for publishing it.

"We did run it, but going back we took a look and realized there was a lot of offensive imagery in that that victimized women. We had to take responsibility for that. We published it. We wish we wouldn't have."
~ Tony Messenger, St. Louis Post-Dispatch Editorial Editor, via CNN



And while the Chicago Tribune didn't totally break with Will, they didn't use that column. Here's why, via Media Matters
The Tribune, one of the largest papers in the country, told Media Matters that the paper turned Will's column down after reading it.
In comments to Media Matters, Bruce Dold, editorial page editor of the Tribune, explained why his paper, which runs Will on occasion, passed on the June 7 column.
"I thought the column was misguided and insensitive," Dold told Media Matters Thursday. "We didn't publish it. Marcia Lythcott, the Op-Ed editor, made that decision and it was the right call."
The paper has no plans to abandon Will permanently, however.
"That doesn't mean we pulled Will for that week, though. We don't anchor syndicated columnists," Dold explained. "We run George Will on occasion. I checked our archives and it looks like we've run him four times in the past year. We will continue to consider him on a column by column basis, as we do with other syndicated columnists we buy."

Click Here to Sign Change.Org Petition to Fire George Will
. . . after editorial page editor Fred Hiatt defended George Will's article, another opinion piece by Brad Wilcox and Robin Wilson on June 10 told women that they protect themselves against violence by getting married, since violence against women is less common in marriages than it is in unmarried relationships (a point that they make by misusing data). The conclusion here is that it's women's responsibility to end male violence by getting married — rather than it being men's responsibility to end male violence by not doing it. And the article's earlier version had a byline that added racism to misogyny: "The data show that #yesallwomen would be safer hitched to their baby daddies."
The Washington Post should not be helping to promote defenses of rape culture and attacks on rape survivors. George Will and Fred Hiatt both need to go.

Friday, August 23, 2013

Was Miranda a "Mule" or a Journalist?

 photo 6ecd5972-5762-4230-a7cd-755bf8ced42a.jpg

Previous Related Posts:
Guardian Editor Alan Rusbridger Spins Away
Smashing Hard Drives: the Miranda - Snowden - Guardian Saga Continues
Glenn Greenwald Threatens to spill UK Secrets
UK Detains Greenwald's Partner, Twitter Wars Erupt

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I was just taking materials back to Glenn.
~ David Miranda, spouse of journalist Glenn Greenwald, on CNN after being stopped and held for nine hours at Heathrow Airport while possibly carrying material from fugitive Edward Snowden





What is the Guardian's Position over David Miranda's Legal Action?
Alan Rusbridger, Editor, Guardian UK: The Guardian is supporting that action and we are supporting it in terms of financing it because David Miranda was acting on behalf of Glenn Greenwald at the time he was detained. So we support that action and I think it's a good thing to challenge that law and see why Terror and Journalism are being elided in this disturbing way.
David Miranda wasn't really "on assignment." He is Glenn Greenwald's partner. Glenn Greenwald's a very busy man and he assists Glenn in his journalistic work, and he was acting as a messenger or intermediary in a way that's difficult for Glenn at the moment because he's got a lot of work to be doing in Brazil, and I think he's also a bit nervous about traveling at the moment.
Was it wrong for the Guardian to pay a non-journalist to act as a courier this way, especially if he didn't know what he was carrying?
Rusbridger: Glenn Greenwald trusts David - he obviously does as his partner, and it was Glenn's decision and David's -- he's a grown-up adult. He wanted somebody he could trust and ... it was important that Glenn had somebody he could trust.
~ Complete Interview Transcript with Alan Rusbridger of Guardian Here

It sounds a lot like he’s being used by Greenwald and doesn’t fully understand the seriousness of what he’s wrapped up in. Now, like any other adult Miranda has agency and did not have the make the trip. And it’s possible he’s downplaying his role to sound innocent.
~ Joshua Foust

In short, the Brazilian was acting as a sort of ‘mule’, though Guardian reports have ignored or under-played this. The Tory MP David Davis, who has bravely campaigned against state surveillance, pointed out yesterday that whatever material was taken from Mr Miranda probably exists elsewhere.
But can you blame the British police for wishing to seize it?
By the way, Mr Miranda acted idiotically in coming via London on his way to Rio de Janeiro, as it is the one place in the world other than America where police were likely to take an interest in him.
~ Stephen Glover on The Daily Mail

Greenwald himself has previously told journalists that his partner assists him in his work. That present ‘work’ consists of engineering the leak of massive amounts of classified intelligence from a source – Edward Snowden – currently granted asylum in Moscow. Greenwald’s partner was travelling through London from a meeting using plane-tickets paid for by the Guardian and – it now transpires – appears to have been carrying files from Snowden. So all those ‘this could happen to any of us’ pieces are only really relevant if you happen to use your partner as a mule for industrial-scale sabotage against states you’re planning to travel to.
~ Douglas Murray on The Spectator

CNN Transcript: Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees, Aired August 20, 2013 - 20:00 ET
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: I sure do. Let's be clear about what Mr. Miranda's role was here. I don't want to be unkind but he was a mule. He was given something, he didn't know what it was, from one person to pass to another at the other end of an airport. Our prisons are full of drug mules.
Glenn's view is, as long as one of the two people on either end of that transaction was a journalist, he can take anything he wants. He could take the nuclear launch codes, he could take the names of our undercover agents --

COOPER: His flight was paid for by "The Guardian," though, so wasn't it in effect he acting in a journalistic capacity?

TOOBIN: No. I don't think that matters a bit who pays for your ticket. I mean, he's on a plane with stuff that is highly classified. You know -- anything he wants, it turns out it wasn't the names of our undercover agents, it was the extremely classified presumably NSA material. That is not the law.

COOPER: But does it -- I mean, he is being detained under a British -- UK Terrorism Act which is -- only supposed to be used to detect and find people who are connected to terrorist. There is no indication that David Miranda -- they knew who he was, they knew he's not connected to some terrorist group.

TOOBIN: Great Britain has its own laws that are similar to ours but then are somewhat different. Their terrorism law takes it one step farther. They say, it's not just the material -- this person is a terrorist, but can be used by terrorist. And frankly, if terrorist know how we surveil their cell phone calls, how we surveil their texts, that could be used for terrorism.
. . . Mr. Miranda was lucky that they used the terrorism law because he wasn't even delayed. He wasn't even stopped overnight. I mean, you know, I'm sure it was inconvenient to be stopped for nine hours at the airport, but, you know, when it -- but you know, when it happens to you on JetBlue they don't even offer you a lawyer.

So, I mean, I just don't think he was sent to the gulag. He was -- he was delayed for a while and they took what appears to be stolen classified information. I think Mr. Miranda actually did pretty well, considering what he was carrying.

. . . The word journalism is not magical immunity sauce that you can put on anything --
COOPER: Immunity sauce --
(LAUGHTER)
TOOBIN: That you can put on anything and make -- eliminate any sort of liability. You know what? If he had the nuclear launch codes on there, he could -- you know, they can take that. If he had the names of undercover operatives, they can take that.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Miranda states (if you believe him, and I don’t) that he had no idea what he was carrying. Greenwald states that he was transporting Snowden’s stolen, top secret CIA intelligence data on encrypted thumb drives. So basically, you have Greenwald using his spouse as a mule to actively assist Edward Snowden, and you have Miranda apparently lying at the airport when he answers that damned basic security question… “Has anyone given you anything to carry on board?”
Did you lie to airport security, then, David?
~ Louise Mensch on The Telegraph



Ask yourselves if Glenn Greenwald, and Laura Poitras, are actively assisting Edward Snowden in his treacherous dissemination of classified, incredibly sensitive US and UK intelligence? From where I’m sitting, it looks like an attempt to fight charges in advance – by claiming that they are journalists and everything they do is covered by the First Amendment. Hence the New York Times putting Poitras on the cover of its magazine supplement this week and Greenwald’s repeated lies about the role of his husband and the events and aftermath of the detention to British journalists, unchallenged anywhere in the UK press, until I started tweeting about it & wrote my last blog on the topic.
They hope that claiming a journalistic role will protect them when they are stealing, storing and disseminating classified intel about not just NSA snooping but America’s intelligence programmes against China, Russia and so forth. They are, in doing so, risking countless lives. So are the Guardian newspaper.
Louise Mensch on Unfashionista




































Tuesday, August 20, 2013

Guardian Editor Alan Rusbridger Spins Away

 photo Spinning.gif

Previous Related Posts:
Smashing Hard Drives: the Miranda - Snowden - Guardian Saga Continues
Glenn Greenwald Threatens to spill UK Secrets
UK Detains Greenwald's Partner, Twitter Wars Erupt

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Note: In my previous post called Smashing Hard Drives  Editor Alan Rusbridger of the Guardian UK was quoted in his own paper saying that an unnamed "shadowy government group" came storming in and destroyed computers in the basement of the building. However, in an interview today with BBC Radio 4, he said Guardian "destroyed the material ourselves." In fact he said it to BBC, then says it twice in an interview posted on the Guardian website. Which version is true, yesterday's or today's? Are they victims of Government overreach or is this just Spin to get sympathy for Snowden?How much credibility can Guardian have going forward when they post hyperbole with incredible details one day, then roll it back the next day? And the reasons for holding onto this story for a month are rather lame - see Huff Post story below. Also Rusbridger also uses an incredibly tone-deaf phrase when he says that Snowden is "waving a red flag" at the world given the history of both China and Russia. #Derp
~ SnarkAmendment

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Guardian Editor Alan Rushbridger Interviewed by BBC Radio
Rusbridger told BBC Radio 4's The World at One on Tuesday that he agreed to the "slightly pointless" task of destroying the devices – which was overseen by two GCHQ officials at the Guardian's headquarters in London – because the newspaper is in possession of digital copies outside Britain.

. . . "It was a rather bizarre situation in which I explained to them that there were other copies and, as with WikiLeaks, we weren't working in London alone so destroying a copy in London seemed to me a slightly pointless task that didn't take account of the way that digital information works these days," said Rusbridger.

"Given that there were other copies and we could work out of America, which has better laws to protect journalists, I saw no reason not to destroy this material ourselves rather than hand it back to the government."

Rusbridger added that the alternative to destroying the computer hard drives would be "essentially surrendering control of that material" to the courts while fighting a lengthy legal case with only a small prospect of winning.

"It seemed to me fruitless to go through that exercise of fighting that case, which would have meant that we could not write about the Snowden material when there were other copies. So it's simply a matter of transferring our reporting to America," he told The World at One's Martha Kearney.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From Huffington Post
Rusbridger told The Huffington Post that he could not originally discuss the property destruction, which took place July 20 before two security experts from British spy agency GCHQ, for “operational reasons."

“Having been through this and not written about it on the day for operational reasons, I was sort of waiting for a moment when the government’s attitude to journalism –- when there was an issue that made this relevant,” Rusbridger said.

That moment came after Sunday's nine-hour airport detainment of David Miranda, partner of Glenn Greenwald, the Guardian journalist at the center of the NSA surveillance story.

“The fact that David Miranda had been detained under this slightly obscure schedule of the terrorism act seemed a useful moment to write about the background to the government’s attitude to this in general,” Rusbridger said.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Guardian Video about Smashed Computers, Miranda, and Snowden






From the Video ~ (My Transcript)

Rusbridger: The disturbing thing about the way they treated David Miranda was the use of this "Terror Act." And there's a little noticed section, schedule 7, which effectively suspends all the normal checks and balances which you would have if you were arrested in Heathrow car park. So in mainland Britain if you're carrying journalistic material you have checks and balances, you can go before a judge, you can argue about the public interest and public importance of that work. By doing it in this kind of stateless bit of Britain, a port or an airport transit lounge and calling it terror, they suspend all the normal rules. And I think that is why people have got disturbed by what happened on Sunday.
We've just seen Edward Snowden holed up in Moscow transit lounge, and I think there's a confusion in law as to where you are when you're in a transit lounge or whether ... whose laws are applied to you.
The British Government about 12-13 years ago actually created this "lawless bit of Britain" where anybody can be questioned for up to nine hours without access to a solicitor, and where all your belongings can be confiscated. And there's nothing you can do about it.
(Note: Guardian reported yesterday that David Miranda was offered a solicitor but refused.)

What is the Guardian's Position over David Miranda's Legal Action?
Rusbridger: The Guardian is supporting that action and we are supporting it in terms of financing it because David Miranda was acting on behalf of Glenn Greenwald at the time he was detained. So we support that action and I think it's a good thing to challenge that law and see why Terror and Journalism are being elided in this disturbing way.
David Miranda wasn't really "on assignment." He is Glenn Greenwald's partner. Glenn Greenwald's a very busy man and he assists Glenn in his journalistic work, and he was acting as a messenger or intermediary in a way that's difficult for Glenn at the moment because he's got a lot of work to be doing in Brazil, and I think he's also a bit nervous about traveling at the moment.

Was it wrong for the Guardian to pay a non-journalist to act as a courier this way, especially if he didn't know what he was carrying?
Rusbridger: Glenn Greenwald trusts David - he obviously does as his partner, and it was Glenn's decision and David's -- he's a grown-up adult. He wanted somebody he could trust and ... it was important that Glenn had somebody he could trust.

Why did you take the decision to destroy the files you had in your possession?
Rusbridger: We were faced effectively with an ultimatum from the British Government that if we didn't hand back the material or destroy it they would move to law. That would mean prior restraint, a concept that is anathema in America and in other parts of the world, in which the state can effectively prevent a news publisher from publishing. And I didn't want to get into that position. And I also explained to the UK officials that we were dealing with that there were other copies already in America and Brazil so they wouldn't be achieving anything.
But once it was obvious that they would be going to law, I would rather destroy the copy than hand it back to them, or allow courts to freeze our reporting.



Would handing over the material be seen as a betrayal of Edward Snowden?
Rusbridger: Well, I didn't think we had Snowden's consent to hand the material back, and I didn't want to help the UK authorities know what he had given us.
So, to me, I wasn't going to hand it back to the government and I was happy to destroy it because it was not going to inhibit our reporting. We would simply do it from America and not from London.

In what way did the Government put pressure on you?
Rusbridger: I think the Government were geniuinly torn and to begin with they were not heavy handed. They were reasonable conversations. It was a reasonable dialogue. All I can is that at some point something changed and that switched into a threat of legal action. I don't know what changed or why they changed. I imagine there were different conversations going on within the security apparatus, within Whitehall, within Downing Street, and at some point a message came to me that 'we'd had our fun' and that the time had now come to return the documents.

How do you think this whole episode will affect the way Journalists go about their work?
Rusbridger: I think anybody, any journalist, reading the Snowden revelations ought to realize that with the mass collection of millions and millions of emails, details of phone calls, texts, the business of reporting securely and having confidential sources is becoming difficult. And I think our further revelations will underline that. I mean, obviously this is a much bigger subject than just journalism. And it affects every citizen. But journalists, I think, should be aware of the difficulties they're going to face in the future because everybody in 2013 leaves a really big digital trail which is very easily accessed.
I hope what this will do is lead people back to read the stories that so upset them about the British state. There's been a lot of reporting about what GCHQ and the NSA are up to. And I think what Snowden is trying to draw attention to is the degree in which we are on a road to total surveillance. We're not there yet, but in these documents there is the state ambition to scoop up everything and store it all and to master the internet.
This is a language that's being used internally and Snowden essentially risked his freedom to wave a big red flag and say look, this is the infrastructure they're building.
And I think in America and in Europe (England?), countries (sp) which have recent history of what that counter-surveillance means, this is being taken very very seriously, and has started a big debate. And I think that the danger in the UK is -- we're a kind of blessed country, we haven't had that kind of recent history. The danger is we'd be a little bit complacent about what's being revealed.

Thursday, January 3, 2013

Chris Christie's Speech Blasting Boehner and House for Lack of Sandy Aid

Photobucket

From CNN Transcript

GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), NEW JERSEY: . . . Homes were damaged or destroyed. Nearly 7 million New Jerseyians were without power, some for up to 14 days. Nearly 600 state roads were closed. One hundred and twenty-seven shelters housed and fed over 7,000 evacuated citizens. All regional mass transit and Hudson River crossings were closed. All New Jersey schools were closed, some for weeks. Tens of thousands of businesses were damaged or destroyed, with many still closed. Our Jersey shore was devastated with the loss of homes, public buildings, and iconic symbols of New Jersey culture and economic vitality destroyed.

Tens of thousands of our citizens entered 2013 unsure of their future as they spent the holiday season displaced from all that was familiar and comforting. Thirty-one days for Andrew victims. Seventeen days for victims of Gustav and Ike. Ten days for victims of Katrina. For the victims of Sandy in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut, this was 66 days and the wait continues.

There is only one group to blame for the continued suffering of these innocent victims, the House majority and their speaker, John Boehner. This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. National disasters happen in red states and blue states and states with Democratic governors and Republican governors. We respond to innocent victims of natural disasters, not as Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans. Or at least we did until last night.



Last night, politics was placed before our oath to serve our citizens. For me, it was disappointing and disgusting to watch. On January 19, 2010, I took an oath to serve all the people of New Jersey, without regard to race or ethnicity, gender or political affiliation. And for the last 1,079 days, I have worked as hard as I could to be loyal to that oath. Whether under the pressure of dealing with a legislature of the opposite party, or the scrutiny of a hotly contested election, I have always put the people of New Jersey and my oath ahead of petty, personal politics. Last night, the House of Representatives failed that most basic test of public service and they did so with callous indifference to the suffering of the people of my state.

If you want an example of how nonpartisan this issue should have been, I offer this for your consideration. Near midnight last night, conservative Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California both spoke on the floor in concert with each other and in support of this aid package. It's one for the record books, I suspect.

On the equities, this should be a no brainer for the House Republicans as well. Both New York and New Jersey used the international firm of McKenzie and Company to assess and quantify the damage to our states. Our professional staffs have spent countless hours with congressional staff providing leadership and backup documentation for all of the damage claims. Governor Cuomo and I have spent hours and hours speaking to individual members of the House and Senate, to answer their questions. We worked with President Obama and his administration and satisfied them of the urgent need of this $60 billion aid package.

This was good enough for 62 United States senators of both parties to vote for this package. This was good enough for s majority of the House of Representatives. It overcame all the factual challenges, it just could not overcome the toxic internal politics of the House majority.

Finally, New Jersey and New York are perennially among the most generous states in the nation to our fellow states. We vote for disaster relief for other states in need. We are donor states, spending -- sending much more to Washington, D.C., than we ever get back in federal spending. Despite this history of unbridled generosity, in our hour of desperate need, we have been left waiting for help, six times longer than the victims of Katrina, with no end in sight.

Americans are tired of the palace intrigue and political partisanship of this Congress, which places oneupmanship ahead of the lives of the citizens who sent these people to Washington, D.C., in the first place. New Jerseyians and New Yorkers are tired of being treated like second class citizens. New York deserves better than the selfishness we saw displayed last night. New Jersey deserves better than the duplicity we saw displayed last night. America deserves better than just another example of the government that has forgotten who they are there to serve and why. Sixty-six days and counting, shame on you. Shame on Congress.

Despite my anger and disappointment, my hope is that the good people in Congress, and there are good people in Congress, will prevail upon their colleagues to finally, finally put aside the politics and help our people now. That's the only hope we have left, is for the good people to prevail upon the others.

One thing I can assure the people of this region is this, Governor Cuomo and I will not stop fighting together to see that justice is done, and that our citizens suffering is finally addressed by this Congress.

~~~~~~~~~~~~