. . . because much of the content relates both to Washington, D.C., and "outside the beltway" -- the heartland, specifically Iowa -- and because after going from Iowa to Washington via Texas and California I subsequently returned, From DC 2 Iowa.
"Fear of the government, fear of kidnapping, fear of harassment and abuse. These fears had kept the [Egyptian] regime in power for three decades. . . . This all changed on January 18th, 2011 when Asmaa Mahfouz decided to face her fears and ask others to join her in protest. She posted a video of herself online . . . calling on others to join her at a protest in Tahrir Square on January 25." Moral Heroes. [more]
The rest, as they say, is history.
Amy Goodman's powerful and moving juxtaposition of that famous January 18 video with her own interview of 26-year-old Asmaa Mahfouz at the site of Occupy Wall Street, provided more than just a gentle reminder of this remarkable young woman's role in the news at the beginning of this year. It caused me to see her, what she did (and continues to do), what she stands for and represents, in a very much brighter, multi-faceted and awesome light.
Do watch this excerpt from Amy Goodman's "Democracy Now," of October 25, 2011. It runs from 12:00 minutes in, to 25:46:
(Actually, the cut begins 15 seconds before 12:00, with news from Occupy Oakland. And I apologize for not providing an embed here but, unlike YouTube (where the New York interview is not yet posted) it was not immediately clear how to embed the segment from Democracy Now into Blogger, other than the link it does provide for Blogger, above.)
The two videos that Amy Goodman has combined spark so many thoughts:
- This powerful, additional illustration of the insight I came to at least 35 years ago that I call "the natural superiority of women" (something Mahfouz demonstrates as well as espouses).
- I consider myself a feminist, in the dictionary sense of someone who is "advocating social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men." As such, I think that men and women alike need to watch this video and reflect on what it represents.
- This young woman succeeded in shaming Egyptian men into joining in public protest: "If you think yourself a man, come with me on January 25th. Whoever says women shouldn't go to protests because they will get beaten, let him have some honor and manhood and come with me on January 25th. If you have honor and dignity as a man, come and protect me, and the other girls in the protest."
- I am just so proud of this young woman, whose eyes now look down upon me from my law school office wall, next to those of Dr. King, as inspiration and reminder of how little I have accomplished, how little I have sacrificed, in a life I profess to have committed to "the public interest," compared with what they have each done in far fewer years. Aside from an occasional assassination threat (usually drunken), all I ever did was to willingly "speak truth to power," and espouse positions, that I knew would prevent my ever being offered the most lucrative jobs in Washington -- because I felt that's what "public service" requires of one. But no one ever actually took a shot at me; I didn't have a lot of desire for what those jobs require you to do anyway; and I'd even written a book about the virtues of knowing the difference between "enough" and "more" (Test Pattern for Living).
- Both King and Mahfouz knowingly confronted death (and one was killed) for the causes in which they believed. Aside from our brave military men and women in combat, and the journalists who bring us their stories (such as Christiane Amanpour), most displays of what passes for male macho shrivels by comparison.
- Her historic launching of the 2011 "Arab Spring."
- How an idea like non-violent protest, and the the power of ordinary people in a democracy, can spread -- from Gandhi, to Dr. King, to Asmaa Mahfouz, who then brings it back again to America, to inspire and encourage us at Occupy Wall Street and throughout our country.
- There were (and are) many uses of cyberspace, the Internet, and social media in this year's global popular protests; but none with the drama and impact of Mahfouz' video on her Facebook page, copied to YouTube, inspiring millions of Egyptians to action, and now seen by probably hundreds of millions more.
- For those who mourn for our species' future, and especially those (such as parents and teachers) who work with, and hope for, the coming generation, Mahfouz is a beacon of possibility, a reminder that -- while there may be none exactly like her -- there are others coming along who have at least some of her smarts, her courage, her natural leadership qualities, her moral values, and her ability to articulate (in at least two languages) all of the above.
- The spark of hope that may be found in "the American fall" that has followed "the Arab spring;" our own, very much smaller and milder, "Occupy" movement. A spark that she reached out and helped to fan with her presence at Occupy Wall Street.
- And to think she doesn't even have a law degree! Just a B.A. in business from Cairo University. Amazing. :>)
Wha' Happened? (bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
Do you find yourself still wondering how America could have moved so swiftly from where we appeared to be heading in the Fall of 2008 to where we are today? Haven't found answers from the mainstream media?
Real News' CEO and Senior Editor Paul Jay offers a succinct and plausible theory:
Not familiar with Real News? I won't try to explain it. Click the link for an example of the organization's offering, "About Us" for an explanation of what it's up to, and "Board of Directors" for an introduction to some of the personalities.
While I'm at it, if you, too, enjoy getting a variety of perspectives on what's going on, and are not yet familiar with it, check out "Democracy Now!" with Amy Goodman, right on your laptop screen -- one of the best daily hours of television news available anywhere. Here's the automatically updated most recent show:
Check out Democracy Now!'s main Web page to give you a sense of what it provides by way of stories, transcripts, and links each day, and its "About" page, and other links in the left hand column for more background on this remarkable service. As it reports, "Pioneering the largest public media collaboration in the U.S., Democracy Now! is broadcast on Pacifica, NPR, community, and college radio stations; on public access, PBS, satellite television (DISH network: Free Speech TV ch. 9415 and Link TV ch. 9410; DIRECTV: Free Speech TV ch. 348 and Link TV ch. 375); and on the internet. DN!’s podcast is one of the most popular on the web."
For one of the best running commentaries about the commercial media, give a listen online to the weekly radio program, "On the Media."
And, not incidentally, each of these operations gains its independence from the fact that it does not accept corporate or government money. Each is heavily financially dependent on contributions from viewers and listeners. So if you're in a holiday giving mood, this would be a good time to send each of them a contribution either online or by check.
Just a thought. ______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
Hear Its Echos In the Streets Of That Half of the World's Population
Who Have Less Than 1% of the World's Wealth (bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
"When all else fails, read the manual."
It's good advice when dealing with mechanical or electronics problems -- or corporate-government oppression.
In this case, and on this day, "the manual" is our Declaration of Independence.
NPR on-air personalities read it aloud over the air each year about this time. I read it silently, as my own personal reminder. And for my source I go to the online transcript provided by the folks who are paid to watch over the 234-year-old original for us, the U.S. National Archives & Records Administration.
The NARA describes it as one of our "Charters of Freedom." But it is more than an historic, archival document. It is as timely as today's news, from the Taliban's demands we get out of their country before talks begin, to the hundreds protesting the G20 agenda in Toronto last week, to the anger of our domestic Tea Party crowd and those suffering from the government-corporate abuse of the Gulf of Mexico (Minerals Management Service and BP).
It's a good time to re-read the entire document, linked above, but I'm just going to excerpt some passages that I believe have the greatest currency. As you read them just substitute for "the King of Great Britain" and his abuses, not those of any single individual, but the impact on humanity, especially that least able to defend itself, of the oppressive global-corporate-government-military complex. For what oppresses the world's people today goes well beyond any single nation's government -- as the G20, and its pro-corporate agenda starkly symbolize for us -- and is therefore all the more difficult even to grasp, let alone do something about.
As you read, think about what the BBC and other independent, other-than-American, journalists report as the complaints of those in the streets of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Palestine, and at least 50 other countries. See if you can feel even just a small part of what they feel. See if you can hear the echos of the drafters of our Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights in the chants of the mobs in their streets, in the cries of mothers with starving children, in the anguish of the survivors who mourn the innocent civilians killed on their way to a wedding -- or a funeral for those killed earlier in the week. And think about the Congress, the institution that threw off our oppressors 234 years ago, and has now become a major part of our domestic problems.
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. . . .
[W]hen a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them [the People] under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, . . .. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, . . .. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. . . . He has obstructed the Administration of Justice . . .. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies: For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. . . . He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us . . .. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity . . .. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. . . .
If you had difficulty with that exercise, here's a little help from Maude Barlow, head of the "Council of Canadians," Canada's largest public advocacy organization. Her remarks to the thousands gathered in Toronto's Massey Hall, as a part of the protest of the G20 agenda, were reported by Amy Goodman on "Democracy Now!," July 2: "Maude Barlow: 'The World Has Divided Into Rich and Poor as at No Time in History."
Here are excerpts from her remarks:
On the eve of this G-20 gathering, let’s look at a few facts.
Fact, the world has divided into rich and poor as at no time in our history. The richest 2% own more than half the household wealth in the world. The richest 10% hold 85% of total global assets and the bottom half of humanity owns less than 1% of the wealth in the world. The three richest men in the world have more money than the poorest 48 countries.
Fact, while those responsible for the 2008 global financial crisis were bailed out and even rewarded by the G-20 government’s gathering here, the International Labor Organization tells us that in 2009, 34 million people were added to the global unemployed, swelling those ranks to 239 million, the highest ever recorded. Another 200 million are at risk in precarious jobs and the World Bank tells us that at the end of 2010, another 64 million will have lost their jobs. By 2030, more than half the population of the megacities of the Global South will be slumdwellers with no access to education, health care, water, or sanitation.
Fact, global climate change is rapidly advancing, claiming at least 300,000 lives and $125 billion in damages every year. Called the silent crisis, climate change is melting glaciers, eroding soil, causing freak and increasingly wild storms, displacing untold millions from rural communities to live in desperate poverty in peri-urban centers. Almost every victim lives in the Global South in communities not responsible for greenhouse gas emissions and not represented here at the summit. . . .
The global mining industry sucks up . . . 800 trillion liters [of water] which it also leaves behind as poison and fully one-third of global water withdrawals are now used to produce biofuels, enough water to feed the world.
Nearly three billion people on our planet do not have running water within a kilometer of their home and every eight seconds, somewhere in our world, a child is dying of waterborne disease. The global water crisis is getting steadily worse with reports of countries from India to Pakistan to Yemen facing depletion. The World Bank says that by 2030, demand for water will outstrip supply by 40%. This may sound just like a statistic, but the suffering behind that is absolutely unspeakable.
Fact, knowing there will not be enough food and water for all in the near future, wealthy countries and global investment pension and hedge funds are buying up land and water, fields and forests in the Global South, creating a new wave of invasive colonialism that will have huge geopolitical ramifications. Rich countries faced by food shortages have already bought up an area in Africa alone more than twice the size of the United Kingdom.
Now I don’t think I exaggerate if I say that our world has never faced a greater set of threats and issues than it does today.
So what are the twenty leaders who have gathered here, some already here and the others coming in tonight, what are they going to talk about over the next two days? By the way, their summit costs . . . $2 billion when it’s finished, and the annual budget to run the United Nations is $1.9 billion. I assure you, they are not going to tackle the above issues in any serious way.
The declarations have already been drafted, the failures already spun.
Instead, this global royalty who have more in common with one another than they do with their own citizens . . . are here really to advance the issues and interest of their class . . . to advance the status quo that serves the interest of the elite in their own countries and the business community or the B-20, the new term, a community that will get private and privileged access to advance their free market solutions to these eager leaders.
The agenda is more of the bad medicine that made the world sick in the first place. Environmental deregulation, unbridled financial speculation, unlimited growth, unregulated free trade, relentless resource exploitation, tax cuts for the wealthy, cuts to Social Security and a war on working people. In other words, savage capitalism.
Amy Goodman concluded her report of Barlow's remarks: "Three thousand people packed into the Toronto event. This was at the same time the G8 and then the G20 met. Between 900 and 1,000 people are believed to have been arrested, the largest mass arrest in Canadian history. Among them, many journalists. More than a billion dollars, it’s believed, were spent on so-called security, the most expensive security event in Canadian history."
To end this on a little happier, and more optimistic note, there's music -- music is at the core of most peoples' movements, and here's an example just brought to me that also makes reference to the past. First, the lyrics from the talented Steve Earle's song, "Christmas in Washington," followed by a YouTube of him singing it in 2008. (A search will bring you a number of YouTubes of Joan Baez singing it.)
Christmas In Washington”
It's Christmastime in Washington The Democrats rehearsed Gettin' into gear for four more years Things not gettin' worse The Republicans drink whiskey neat And thanked their lucky stars They said, 'He cannot seek another term They'll be no more FDRs' I sat home in Tennessee Staring at the screen With an uneasy feeling in my chest And I'm wonderin' what it means
Chorus: So come back Woody Guthrie Come back to us now Tear your eyes from paradise And rise again somehow If you run into Jesus Maybe he can help you out Come back Woody Guthrie to us now
I followed in your footsteps once Back in my travelin' days Somewhere I failed to find your trail Now I'm stumblin' through the haze But there's killers on the highway now And a man can't get around So I sold my soul for wheels that roll Now I'm stuck here in this town
Chorus
There's foxes in the hen house Cows out in the corn The unions have been busted Their proud red banners torn To listen to the radio You'd think that all was well But you and me and Cisco know It's going straight to hell
So come back, Emma Goldman Rise up, old Joe Hill The barracades are goin' up They cannot break our will Come back to us, Malcolm X And Martin Luther King We're marching into Selma As the bells of freedom ring
So enjoy the hot dogs and fireworks, and the day off on July 5, but don't forget to read the Declaration of Independence again sometime before Tuesday. And remember, "The Declaration of Independence: It's not just for history class anymore." _______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
. . . and how do we get out? (bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
There are some things I think you and I need to reflect upon regarding our role in Afghanistan.
It's July 1 in Iowa, and July 2 where I am, addressing policies other than war. But I've just taken a "Democracy Now!" (Amy Goodman) break, thanks to the wonders of a tiny computer, an Ethernet cable, and the global Internet.
Her July 1 show (which you can find at the link, above) is a review of Afghanistan. And bringing that show to your attention is my purpose in breaking silence on this blog. (The absence of entries -- which will continue until my return -- has been occasioned by heavier than usual obligations, and shorter deadlines on other writing projects, than usual.)
So the following paragraph, an item from her opening headlines for that show, while not the topic of this blog entry, provides an explanation for why I think her daily, hour-long program is always an important part of your news budget -- and especially this one.
Study: Media Stopped Calling Waterboarding "Torture" Following Its Disclosure as Routine U.S. Practice
A new study says the U.S. corporate media drastically altered its use of the word torture after its practice by the U.S. became widely exposed under the Bush administration. Researchers at Harvard University found newspapers almost uniformly described waterboarding as torture dating back to the 1930s. But when it was revealed as a common tactic approved under President Bush, the same newspapers stopped using the word torture almost entirely. Whereas the New York Times had previously characterized waterboarding as torture in 81.5% of articles, from 2002 to 2008 it characterized waterboarding as torture in just 1.4 percent of articles.
Now I don't think it's a good practice for any of us, regardless of our political/ideological orientation, to limit our news and opinion sources to those most likely to re-enforce our prejudices. I wouldn't suggest anyone limit their knowledge of the world to what Amy Goodman provides. The six daily papers I examine, as well as other sources, are almost exclusively what that brief story describes as "U.S. corporate media." I look to the official line from whitehouse.gov, and BP. And I add to them dips into the unabashedly right wing sources as well.
But I also watch Amy Goodman, for news and interviews I can get almost nowhere else (including PBS/NPR). And I devote a Website to links for a random sampling of what I call "Global Media." Because, in my judgment and experience, there does seem to be disproportionate pro-government/establishment/corporate emphasis in the "U.S. corporate media."
The paragraph quoted above, regarding the media's flip-flop handling of waterboarding as torture, simply reminded me of that all over again.
Headlines of interviews from the July 1 show include:
•Michael Hastings of Rolling Stone on the Story that Brought Down Gen. McChrystal and Exposed Widening Disputes Behind the U.S. Debacle in Afghanistan
•Rep. John Conyers and Out of Afghanistan Caucus Oppose Obama Admin’s $33B Escalation of Afghan War
•Fmr. Marine, State Dept. Official Matthew Hoh is First U.S. Official to Resign Over Afghan War
All involve facts and insights at least some of which will probably be new to you.
There is also a clip from Robert McNamera, explaining what was wrong with our analysis of Vietnam as a place for "war" -- insights that are almost perfectly applicable to Iraq and Afghanistan.
I offered President Johnson a similar perspective regarding our Vietnam catastrophe -- but before rather than after that war. While the fate that my message produced was neither as severe nor public as what General McChrystal has recently experienced (nor was my confidential report as ad hominem or public as McChrystal's), I always believed it did have something to do with LBJ's deciding that his young Maritime Administrator, handling sealift to Vietnam, would make a really terrific FCC Commissioner.
The top thinkers in the military, many of whom do make their way to the top of their service, or the Joint Chiefs' staff, are well educated, bright, analytical and rational.
When left to their own independent judgment and opinions they are the ones likely to ask questions like those I outlined above.
What, exactly, is it you are trying to do in this country? How are our national interests involved? In what ways do you think a military presence could be helpful in reaching that goal (as distinguished from, e.g., Peace Corps presence and building infrastructure; cultural exchanges; or bringing their best students to our universities)? How would you describe that military mission? With what metrics would you measure our military's progress? How many troops will it take to accomplish that mission? How long will it take? What is your basis for thinking the American people, and their elected representatives, will support the cost in human life and taxes over that time? (Support for the Afghan war has now dropped below 50%.) What support is there in the international community for this action? Does that support include financial support and troops? Once in, how do we get out; that is, what is our "exit strategy"? On the assumption the military mission produces the outcome desired, why is it reasonable to assume that progress will be sustained after we leave?
Note what General McChrystal is said to be talking about. Our military efforts "have not made their lives better;" security must be provided by locals "but their army will not be ready to do that for three years and it will take much longer for the police;" and a jobs program would be more effective than continuing to shoot Afghans ("60% of the problem would go away if they could be found jobs").
Having extolled the benefits of exposure to views other than your own, above, as you may have guessed by now, you will find more from the guests interviewed on Amy Goodman's July 1 program that is consistent, than that which contradicts, my own view of our Afghanistan efforts.
But, then, a little support for one's instincts from time to time isn't all bad either.
Watch, or just listen, to the July 1 "Democracy Now!" show now, while you're thinking about it. You'll thank me that you did.
Oh, and how do we get out? That's Chairman John Conyers' contribution to the program.
_______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
These charges are serious enough that the Obama administration needs to either (a) come forward with credible evidence as to why they are not true, or (b) if true, provide some explanation as to why this deliberate brutalization is continuing on President Obama's watch.
President Obama has made a great deal of his desire to close the Gitmo prison camp. He will even be speaking on the subject today. He has said we will no longer engage in torture. As a result, either (a) those who brief him on such matters have some explaining to do as to why he was not told of this American "thug squad," or (b) if he was, why he has done nothing to stop it.
Here are excerpts from a transcript of Amy Goodman's interview (available in full from the "Democracy Now" link, above):
AMY GOODMAN: . . .
While there’s been a lot of focus on torture under the Bush administration, what about under President Obama? In a new article, investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill writes the Obama administration is continuing to use a notorious military police unit at Guantanamo that regularly brutalizes unarmed prisoners, including gang-beating them, breaking their bones, gouging their eyes, dousing them with chemicals.
This force, officially known as the Immediate Reaction Force, has been labeled the “Extreme Repression Force” by Guantanamo prisoners, and human rights lawyers call their actions illegal, Jeremy writes.
Jeremy Scahill is an award-winning investigative journalist, author of the bestselling book Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army. His writing and reporting is available at RebelReports.com. . . .
Describe what you call as this “little known military thug squad.”
JEREMY SCAHILL: . . . [W]hile much of the focus has been on the tactical use of torture at Guantanamo, almost no attention had been paid to a parallel force that was torturing prisoners in a variety of ways, including waterboarding them, and that is this riot squad of sorts that you referred to called the Immediate Reaction Force. The prisoners and their lawyers at Guantanamo call it the “Extreme Repression Force.”
And basically what this is is a thug squad that is used to mercilessly punish prisoners who show the slightest bit of resistance or who do things that technically they’re not supposed to do, infractions like having two Styrofoam cups in their cell instead of one.
Guards will call in this goon squad. They come in with their Darth Vader outfits, and they literally gang-beat prisoners. There are five men, generally, that are sent in. Each of them is assigned to one body part of the prisoner: the head, the left arm, the right arm, the left leg, the right leg. They go in, and they hogtie the prisoner, sometimes leaving them hogtied for hours on end. They douse them with chemical agents. They have put their heads in toilets and flushed the toilets repeatedly. They have urinated on the heads of prisoners. They’ve squeezed their testicles in the course of restraining them. They’ve taken the feces from one prisoner and smeared it in the face of another prisoner.
And while Barack Obama, almost immediately upon taking office, issued an executive order saying he was going to close down Guantanamo within a year and that he was going to respect the Geneva Convention while his administration reviewed Guantanamo, this force has continued to operate and torture prisoners under the Obama administration.
In fact, in February of this year, about a month after Obama was inaugurated, there were sixteen prisoners on a hunger strike at Guantanamo. The . . . Immediate Reaction Force was used to go in and violently shove massive tubes down their noses into their stomachs. . . . They would use no anesthetics or any painkillers, shove this massive tube by force down their nose into their stomach and then yank it out. . . . [M]any have passed out from the sheer pain of this operation.
This force has received almost no scrutiny in the US Congress or the US media and operates at this moment.
AMY GOODMAN: How do you know about this?
JEREMY SCAHILL: Well, I discovered these teams, because I’ve been covering the investigation being done by Judge Baltasar Garzon in Spain into the Bush torture system. What’s interesting is that the most aggressive investigation at this point into the Bush war crimes is being done an ocean away in Madrid.
And I came across a story of a prisoner named Omar Deghayes, and he is one of the four people that is cited directly in the Spanish investigation as having been tortured by the United States. . . . Omar Deghayes was . . . repeatedly abused by one of these squads. . . . I started to look into it and realized that there has been a multi-year pattern of abuse on the part of this team.
And yet, the only time when it’s really made any kind of a flash in the corporate media was when a US soldier, a young guy named Sean Baker, who was a Gulf War vet, was participating in a training exercise in Guantanamo in January of 2003, where he was ordered, he says, by his superiors to dress up in an orange jumpsuit and play the part of a restive or combative detainee at Guantanamo. . . . He describes them just mercilessly beating him, . . . even after he then said, “I’m a US soldier! I’m a US soldier!” . . .
That young man, Sean Baker, has permanent brain damage, suffers from multiple seizures, and had actually sued Rumsfeld and other officials because of his treatment. . . . As Scott Horton, a military and constitutional law expert I talked to, said, you know, this is one US soldier who received this kind of treatment; imagine what happens to these detainees. . . .
[D]despite Obama’s rhetoric about how he’s going to reform the military tribunal system, we understand that it’s all cosmetic changes. The fact is, torture continues at Guantanamo. . . .
[T]he status quo alive and well, and it’s very, very damaging to the US Constitution, international law and the lives of these prisoners who remain in legal limbo.
AMY GOODMAN: Jeremy, this force, known as the Immediate Reaction Force, or Emergency Reaction Force, IRF or ERF, are they being filmed when they go into these cells?
JEREMY SCAHILL: . . . I’ve been reading the now-declassified Standard Operating Procedures for Guantanamo that were written by Major General Geoffrey Miller, the man . . . who is believed to have started all of this . . . and then Gitmo-ized Abu Ghraib . . ..
In the Standard Operating Procedures that General Miller issued in 2003, he said that all of the IRF teams, when they would go in to restrain a prisoner, that they had to videotape the operation . . ..
So, Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights asks a very simple question: “Where are the tapes?” Presumably, if the Standard Operating Procedures were followed, we could see . . . the breaking of noses and other body parts on the part of prisoners. But in order to do that, we would have to have an administration that was going to come completely clean with the crimes of the past and make these videos available, along with the thousands of photos that show the systematic abuse of US prisoners.
But what we see at every turn is the Obama administration, backed up by the Wall Street Journal editorial board, backed up by the neoconservatives, backed up by the hawkish Republicans, on one side, and then the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and social justice and antiwar activists and human rights advocates, on the other side. This is a sad reality in America today, where you have a president that campaigned on a change that we can believe in continuing the most repressive policies of the Bush administration.
Obviously, I have no personal knowledge of any of this. I am unaware of any independent, confirming sources of Scahill's charges. Nor have I read, however, the response of anyone who is challenging what he is saying.
All I'm saying by repeating some of his allegations in this blog, is that when an independent, investigative reporter with Scahill's credentials makes them I think they are serious enough that they can't simply be left out there with no response.
I'm waiting. _______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
"[T]he largest public media collaboration in the U.S., [this program] is broadcast on Pacifica, NPR, community, and college radio stations; on public access, PBS, satellite television (DISH network: Free Speech TV ch. 9415 and Link TV ch. 9410; DIRECTV: Link TV ch. 375); and on the internet. [Its] podcast is one of the most popular on the web." [Source.]
If you know the answer, "good on you," as the Aussies would say.
If you don't, shame on your local mainstream newspapers, radio and television stations for neither offering the program nor mentioning it sufficiently that you would know.
And now that we're being robbed blind to the tune of trillions of dollars by the former "masters of the universe" and their Washington friends, with the help of the dominant political party controlling Congress, the Wall Street Party, our thoughts are turning back to "democracy." To inform ourselves about true democracy and the alternative future it might offer, Americans are turning their TVs and radios back to Democracy Now!
What Democracy Now! reveals, for starters, is that there are enormous numbers of well educated, articulate present and former politicians, academics, journalists, and experts in many fields who are, for all practical purposes, simply shut out of the mainstream media. Little is contributed by trying to label them "left" or "right," "conservative" or "liberal." Nor will you find most of them to be engaged in the rants and raves we've grown accustomed to hearing from the chattering classes on cable channels. They are simply providing current and historic facts (and opinions) that don't support the world view held, and propagated, by mainstream media and its corporate sponsors.
For a confirmation, watch these revelations from Jeff Cohen regarding his years inside CNN and MSNBC:
Amy Goodman, "Jeff Cohen Interview," Democracy Now!, October 12, 2006
And then check the Democracy Now! site and watch, or listen, to one of host Amy Goodman's recent hour-long news programs.
The Internet
As an FCC commissioner forty years ago I thought TV left a lot to be desired. Sometimes I shared John Prine's suggestion we should all simply "blow up your TV."
[Blow up your T.V. throw away your paper Go to the country, build you a home Plant a little garden, eat a lot of peaches Try an find Jesus on your own -- John Prine, "Spanish Pipedream", original release date, November 30, 1970.]
At the time I wrote a couple of books offering alternative solutions as well as concerns: How to Talk Back to Your Television Set and Test Pattern for Living (both now available for free as links from my main Web site). (The newest book on the subject, Your Second Priority, 2008, is also linked from there.)
For an adult to die, having spent a full 13 years of their life merely "watching TV," struck me as a bit of a waste.
But over the years I, too, became a TV watcher -- albeit more like seven hours a week than the seven hours a day the TV is running in the average home -- but nonetheless sucked into TV's effort to schedule its audience members' lives: ABC Evening News, 5:30-6:00, Jim Lehrer, 6:00-6:30, and so forth.
Years ago, to free myself from its grip, I used a VCR to videotape the shows in which I had an interest -- often playing them back at 10 times normal speed and slowing the tape only when something looked compelling.
More recently, everyone from Norman Lear to my son, Sherman, has been insisting I subscribe to the TiVo service.
We've come up with a different solution: the Internet.
The media have always been subject to the influence of new technology from the time the monks had to surrender some of their power over hand written books, literacy and libraries to the printing press.
The telegraph impacted newspapers' reach and timeliness. Radio news supplanted, to some degree, the "Extra! Extra! Read all about it!" marketing of updates to the morning newspaper.
Television offered the kinds of moving pictures of the news, delivered daily to the home, formerly available only in the dated "Fox Movietone News" film clips accompanying local theaters' feature films -- yet the newspapers and radio news survived.
Today, with the newspapers giving away for free on the Internet what they are also trying to sell to subscribers in hard copy, they may have, to some degree, met their technological match. See, Nicholas Johnson, "Whither Newspapers?" January 18, 2009; Tom Price, "Future of Journalism," CQ Researcher 19.12 (2009): 273-296. CQ Researcher Online. CQ Press. University of Iowa Libraries. March 30, 2009; "Rescuing Investigative Journalism," International Leadership Forum, February 28, 2009-.
Now it's not that I haven't been aware that there is video material on the Internet as well -- everything from individuals' productions on YouTube to programs from the old line conventional networks, ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS. And I've known that many radio stations also have their Internet, streaming presence.
But it was only a month or so ago that this knowledge affected our daily behavior as well as our intellect.
With a cable bill running over $100 a month, the economy getting worse by the day, and being of the penny-pinching persuasion, some savings on that monthly cable bill looked attractive. So as a week long experiment my wife and I began watching "TV" on our laptops rather than the TV set. Much to our surprise, it seemed an improvement. Most of the shows we cared to watch were not only available in timely fashion, they were archived as well; we could watch Jon Stewart's "Daily Show" opening anytime we wished. The Internet was fast becoming our free TiVo -- with vastly greater range of choice and storage capability.
(It turned out that it's actually cheaper to subscribe to "basic" cable than to eliminate all cable programming. Wall Street evaluates a cable company's worth on the basis of the number of subscribers.) So we cut back to "basic," and since the greater speed being promised by the higher priced broadband Internet service wasn't delivering on the promise, we cut that back as well. All told, it was nearly an $800 a year savings.
Always interested in the community radio (and public access channels) I supported as an FCC commissioner, I took a special interest in KBRP-TV on a recent trip to Bisbee. I had purchased a cheap ($300) 8.9" Acer AspireOne traveling computer for that trip. Upon my return, initially wondering how it could be used at home, I realized I could listen to that Bisbee station on my Acer -- my new "bedside radio." Now I have clicks to WBAI-FM, New York, KPFA-FM, Berkeley, and a number of other stations as well -- including Amy Goodman's Democracy Now!
A big laptop is my "TV;" the little netbook is my "radio." And this very significant shift in my access to "broadcasting" -- after a lifetime of fascination with "radio" (commercial and amateur) -- all happened in less than a month.
Democracy Now!, like orange juice, is no longer "just for breakfast." But the two do go well together: weekday mornings, 7:00-8:00 central time, on an Internet near you (as well as a local cable access channel). Try it; you'll like it. _______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
Amy Goodman's powerful and moving juxtaposition of that famous January 18 video with her own interview of 26-year-old Asmaa Mahfouz at the site of Occupy Wall Street, provided more than just a gentle reminder of this remarkable young woman's role in the news at the beginning of this year. It caused me to see her, what she did (and continues to do), what she stands for and represents, in a very much brighter, multi-faceted and awesome light.
