Slashdot Mirror

But will it report when the interrogation turns to illegal torture, like a live human might?

"At a news conference in Washington, panel members estimated the cost of the new recommendations at $10 billion a year, a figure that may prove daunting to Congress in a time of tight budgets."

$246 billion--largely earmarked for 'friends of Washington' projects, e.g. "Help Poor Big Oil Rebuild Their Refineries"
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/1 3/1359253

$10 billion--to keep the US competitive in science and develop our best talent? No way.

I guess you need to keep a pretty tight budget if your goal is to have as much left over to loot as possible.

~Ben

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/2 6/145248

You really shouldn't trust the press/media for news, nor leftist websites (Kos et al). They have a habit of not pointing out things Democrats do, and obsessing over Republicans when they do the same thing. The fact that two thirds of journalists across the USA, and nine tenths of journalists in Washington DC, self-identify as Democrats in confidential polls probably has something to do with this.

FYI, I am a foreigner living in the USA, and find it rather sad the way people cleave to identity politics in this country. The free pass Democrats get in this country also irritates me. From my point of view, you need to cut politicians open with a tree saw and count the rings to tell the difference in party.

I made the mistake of deciding to read the transcripts of White House press meetings, since Sept 2001. The end result is that I'll never trust any journalist again. I really feel sorry for any president, regardless of party.

You, fairly obviously, are trusting someone you shouldn't.

Good luck.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/2 6/145248

YHL, HAND

Finkployd

A National Disaster is clearly an excellent opportunity to trial new R&D in the field; harsh environmental conditions, long uptime, contingencies at a maximum - like a 'warzone' really. It would seem Bush has chosen to test future battle tech on his own people at home rather than random foreigners or US folk abroad. He doesn't miss a beat does he?

Anyway, I guess these sonic cannons are cheaper than food, shelter and tear-gas or else he surely would have.. nevermind.

As someone who has personally corresponded with the whole family before as one of the organizers of the ill-fated Jarrar Family Tour of the United States, and met people who met them personally, I can assure you that they are quite real. Raed, Khalid's brother, is the Raed of "Dear Raed" fame (infamous "Salam Pax"'s blog, the owner of which later ended up becoming a journalist, and who earlier was the interpreter of Slate reporter Peter Maass). He's also a friend of Ghaith ("G in Baghdad"), a reporter for "The Guardian", who has published some amazing articles in the paper. Raed was also one of the heads of CIVIC in Iraq, which is anything but a fictional organization. Here's a Democracy Now interview with Raed, in case you want to hear his voice.

Also, my nick is Rei, not REI (an outdoor gear store).

If you want great English, read Raed's blog. His brother Khalid doesn't speak as well as he does (although is quite readable), and his mother Faiza often has to rely on a translator.

Worldwide, although ocean temperatures have risen, the overall number and strength of cyclones have not.

Ahh, but total energy consumption by hurricanes over the last few decades has increased worldwide because they are lasting longer. Here's a quote from an interview with Kerry Emanuel, Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology:

"[When you look at] their intensity and you look at how long the hurricanes lasted and you measure the total amount of energy released by the hurricanes, that is going up decidedly in most of the world's oceans, and we have tried very hard to see whether this might be an artifact of the way hurricanes are measured or the data, but no matter what you do, you get this signal. And that signal lies on top of regional phenomena."

Personally the *IAA stuff isn't nearly as disturbing to me as is the number of people who are likely to die because they will no longer be able to get generic drugs in their country.

See http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0727-03.ht m
and
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/2 9/1420251

In particular, the part about how there were protests in the other countries that were silenced by the military was interesting. Don't recall hearing about that in the mainstream US media...

Also interesting to hear about all the "computer glitches" recording votes the wrong way on this...

They've got the RSS option, so you can pull any data source in RSS that you'd like into the Portal.

Fox News (US & World) RSS Feed
Fox News RSS List

The Washington Times appears to offer their headlines via RSS only to subscribers.

Democracy Now

The Don't-Out-CIA-Agents law that was passed to bust future Agees is now being used to possibly bust G.W.Bush's henchmen, probably his handler Karl Rove. The law makes it more illegal if you have access to classified information (which Rove does, but may or may not have used) and use that to reveal the identity of covert agents, but also makes it illegal to out them using publicly available information.

The White House has been weasel-wording about "Rove didn't tell Cooper Plame's name, just that she was Wilson's wife", but not only does the law talk about identifying people, not just specifically naming them, but somehow Novak, Cooper, and probably Judith Miller all found out she was an agent, so it wasn't just a "casual remark" intended to "correct mistaken impressions" - it was a well-organized campaign, and Novak apparently talked to two different Administration sources. Not only is Rove guilty, but he's trying to cover it up.

I see a new google poisoning action comming... this time misspelled democracy words for the crawler, like -> dmeocracy.
Can they filter it all out?

A form of Pentagon-supported censorship...

http://www.democracynow.org/static/hiroshima.shtml

Summary:
After the bomb drop on Hiroshima, press are confined to a barge off the coast of Japan. Wilfred Burchett, an independent journalist, decides to go and see things first hand and writes about it ("I write these facts as dispassionately as I can in the hope that they will act as a warning to the world."). William L. Laurence of the New York Times, and on the Pentagon payroll, writes a series of stories discrediting Burchett and gets the Pulitzer Price. Democracy Now is trying to get the Pulitzer stripped from the NYT.

(sorry, accidentally pushed submit instead of preview)

A form of Pentagon-supported censorship... http://www.democracynow.org/static/hiroshima.shtml summary: After the bomb drop on Hiroshima, press are confined to a barge off the coast of Japan. Wilfred Burchett, an independent journalist, decides to go and see things first hand and writes about it ("I write these facts as dispassionately as I can in the hope that they will act as a warning to the world."). William L. Laurence of the New York Times, and on the Pentagon payroll, writes a series of stories discrediting Burchett and gets the Pulitzer Price. Democracy Now is trying to get the Pulitzer stripped from the NYT. from http://archive.webactive.com/pacifica/demnow/dn200 10806.html Soon after the bombing, as reporters converged on a ship off the coast of Japan to cover the surrender of the Japanese, one independent reporter named Wilfred Burchett took a train for 30 hours to Hiroshima. He couldn't believe what he saw: people with their skin melting off them, images of people engraved on the sides of buildings. He sat down with his Hermes typewriter in the rubble, and tapped out the words, "I write this as a warning to the world." He talked about something he called, 'bomb sickness', that he had never seen before. Another reporter did a ten-part series on the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He was William Leonard Laurence of the New York Times. He was also on the payroll of the Pentagon. One of his headlines was, "No Bomb Sickness Found." He won the Pulitzer Prize for his reporting. Wilfred Burchett died of cancer decades later, but always traced it to Hiroshima.

Just today Democracy Now is running an interesting interview with a person involved in the Central American "free" trade pact.

This business school professor reiterates many of the same points brought out in these discussions. He tells an interesting story about how Mexican workers are now seen as "rich" and how employers are using the Central American "free" trade pact to drive down the wages of Mexican workers by threatening to move jobs from Mexico to Honduras.

Ahh, the wonders of corporate globalization without any element whatsoever of democracy. :-(

The interview can be watched in Real video or listened to in an MP3 stream.

Just today Democracy Now is running an interesting interview with a person involved in the Central American "free" trade pact.

This business school professor reiterates many of the same points brought out in these discussions. He tells an interesting story about how Mexican workers are now seen as "rich" and how employers are using the Central American "free" trade pact to drive down the wages of Mexican workers by threatening to move jobs from Mexico to Honduras.

Ahh, the wonders of corporate globalization without any element whatsoever of democracy. :-(

The interview can be watched in Real video or listened to in an MP3 stream.

Just today Democracy Now is running an interesting interview with a person involved in the Central American "free" trade pact.

This business school professor reiterates many of the same points brought out in these discussions. He tells an interesting story about how Mexican workers are now seen as "rich" and how employers are using the Central American "free" trade pact to drive down the wages of Mexican workers by threatening to move jobs from Mexico to Honduras.

Ahh, the wonders of corporate globalization without any element whatsoever of democracy. :-(

The interview can be watched in Real video or listened to in an MP3 stream.

I am really worried about the next four years in this country.

I don't know about individuals' podcasts, but real radiostations are doing it too. It's the easiest way I know of to get time- and space-shifted radio shows.

I totally agree. I can listen to the Democracy Now! Podcast anytime I want. On the subway, in the car, whenever. That means I can catch up on the events of the day during otherwise wasted time. This is huge for me. I repeat: otherwise wasted time affords me the opportunity to become a more informed citizen.

Also, I visit a bunch of different new sites every day, and I find that the radio format is a much better way for me personally to take in information. I'm sure this is the same with many other people (but not all, of course). I get more out of listening to one Democracy Now! broadcast then I do reading a whole slew of print articles.

And just because most self-produced stuff is crap, doesn't mean it will all be. Someone will come up with a smart way to filter the crap out. Someone always does.

Furthermore, the arena is not just open to radio. Any kind of recorded audio--old lectures are also available. Say your favorite mathematician gave a famous lecture in 1986. Guess what? You can listen to it on the subway. Pretty damn cool if you ask me.

I don't know about individuals' podcasts, but real radiostations are doing it too. It's the easiest way I know of to get time- and space-shifted radio shows.

I totally agree. I can listen to the Democracy Now! Podcast anytime I want. On the subway, in the car, whenever. That means I can catch up on the events of the day during otherwise wasted time. This is huge for me. I repeat: otherwise wasted time affords me the opportunity to become a more informed citizen.

Also, I visit a bunch of different new sites every day, and I find that the radio format is a much better way for me personally to take in information. I'm sure this is the same with many other people (but not all, of course). I get more out of listening to one Democracy Now! broadcast then I do reading a whole slew of print articles.

And just because most self-produced stuff is crap, doesn't mean it will all be. Someone will come up with a smart way to filter the crap out. Someone always does.

Furthermore, the arena is not just open to radio. Any kind of recorded audio--old lectures are also available. Say your favorite mathematician gave a famous lecture in 1986. Guess what? You can listen to it on the subway. Pretty damn cool if you ask me.

would hands down be more interesting and informative than any television news that's around now.

except maybe http://www.democracynow.org/

Chavez, the subject of the coup, has implicated the U.S. repeatedly. Moreover, there are plenty of facts all around that say the U.S. had its fingerprints all over it. Don't be so trusting of the official line. It's not like this was unprecedented as previous posters pointed out.

Read this: Miami Model, and tell me that a national ID (espeically under the auspices of "national security" won't make scenes like this even worse.

There are many journalists and media sources who do not give in to the profit first mentality, i.e. democracynow.org, freespeech.org, pbs.org. Granted some of the messages from these outlets can be just as hair brained and off base as the paid shills, but they are out there none the less.

I will agree that for profit journalists and media bring in more cash for themselves and have the resources to make more noise and be in more peoples faces. However, the attention they get is not due to demand for their product no more than rubber neckers at a train wreck create a demand for more train wrecks.

And in case you haven't noticed, those same for profit journalists, media, and their corporate backers with deep pockets are funding a massive attack on the linux community because the community threatens their for profit revenue streams. The level of education and susceptibility of the community have little to do with the unethical actions of those who would attack the community.

burnin

(doh, forgot to post anonymously, maybe next time)

Naomi Klein has interviewed Giuliana Sgrena in Rome. The revelations in this Democracy Now interview of Klein significantly challenge the stories we've heard thus far in the press:

One of the things that we keep hearing is that she was fired on on the road to the airport, which is a notoriously dangerous road. In fact, it's often described as the most dangerous road in the world. So this is treated as a fairly common and understandable incident that there would be a shooting like this on that road. And I was on that road myself, and it is a really treacherous place with explosions going off all the time and a lot of checkpoints. What Giuliana told me that I had not realized before is that she wasn't on that road at all. She was on a completely different road that I actually didn't know existed. It's a secured road that you can only enter through the Green Zone and is reserved exclusively for ambassadors and top military officials. So, when Calipari, the Italian security intelligence officer, released her from captivity, they drove directly to the Green Zone, went through the elaborate checkpoint process which everyone must go through to enter the Green Zone, which involves checking in obviously with U.S. forces, and then they drove onto this secured road. And the other thing that Giuliana told me that she's quite frustrated about is the description of the vehicle that fired on her as being part of a checkpoint. She says it wasn't a checkpoint at all. It was simply a tank that was parked on the side of the road that opened fire on them. There was no process of trying to stop the car, she said, or any signals. From her perspective, they were just -- it was just opening fire by a tank. The other thing she told me that was surprising to me was that they were fired on from behind. Because I think part of what we're hearing is that the U.S. soldiers opened fire on their car, because they didn't know who they were, and they were afraid. It was self-defense, they were afraid. The fear, of course, is that their car might blow up or that they might come under attack themselves. And what Giuliana Sgrena really stressed with me was that she -- the bullet that injured her so badly and that killed Calipari, came from behind, entered the back seat of the car. And the only person who was not severely injured in the car was the driver, and she said that this is because the shots weren't coming from the front or even from the side. They were coming from behind, i.e. they were driving away. So, the idea that this was an act of self-defense, I think becomes much more questionable. And that detail may explain why there's some reticence to give up the vehicle for inspection. Because if indeed the majority of the gunfire is coming from behind, then clearly, they were firing from -- they were firing at a car that was driving away from them.

There's more....

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/2 5/1516242&mode=thread&tid=25

Why won't the US let the Italians inspect the car? The Italians purchased the car from the rental company so they can do forensics. The US won't let them have the car. Why not? Hello? Bueller? Bueller?

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GD28Ak01.html

Klein then gave an extensive in

Naomi Klein has interviewed Giuliana Sgrena in Rome. The revelations in this Democracy Now interview of Klein significantly challenge the stories we've heard thus far in the press:

One of the things that we keep hearing is that she was fired on on the road to the airport, which is a notoriously dangerous road. In fact, it's often described as the most dangerous road in the world. So this is treated as a fairly common and understandable incident that there would be a shooting like this on that road. And I was on that road myself, and it is a really treacherous place with explosions going off all the time and a lot of checkpoints. What Giuliana told me that I had not realized before is that she wasn't on that road at all. She was on a completely different road that I actually didn't know existed. It's a secured road that you can only enter through the Green Zone and is reserved exclusively for ambassadors and top military officials. So, when Calipari, the Italian security intelligence officer, released her from captivity, they drove directly to the Green Zone, went through the elaborate checkpoint process which everyone must go through to enter the Green Zone, which involves checking in obviously with U.S. forces, and then they drove onto this secured road. And the other thing that Giuliana told me that she's quite frustrated about is the description of the vehicle that fired on her as being part of a checkpoint. She says it wasn't a checkpoint at all. It was simply a tank that was parked on the side of the road that opened fire on them. There was no process of trying to stop the car, she said, or any signals. From her perspective, they were just -- it was just opening fire by a tank. The other thing she told me that was surprising to me was that they were fired on from behind. Because I think part of what we're hearing is that the U.S. soldiers opened fire on their car, because they didn't know who they were, and they were afraid. It was self-defense, they were afraid. The fear, of course, is that their car might blow up or that they might come under attack themselves. And what Giuliana Sgrena really stressed with me was that she -- the bullet that injured her so badly and that killed Calipari, came from behind, entered the back seat of the car. And the only person who was not severely injured in the car was the driver, and she said that this is because the shots weren't coming from the front or even from the side. They were coming from behind, i.e. they were driving away. So, the idea that this was an act of self-defense, I think becomes much more questionable. And that detail may explain why there's some reticence to give up the vehicle for inspection. Because if indeed the majority of the gunfire is coming from behind, then clearly, they were firing from -- they were firing at a car that was driving away from them.

There's more....

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/2 5/1516242&mode=thread&tid=25

Why won't the US let the Italians inspect the car? The Italians purchased the car from the rental company so they can do forensics. The US won't let them have the car. Why not? Hello? Bueller? Bueller?

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GD28Ak01.html

Klein then gave an extensive in

Naomi Klein has interviewed Giuliana Sgrena in Rome. The revelations in this Democracy Now interview of Klein significantly challenge the stories we've heard thus far in the press:

One of the things that we keep hearing is that she was fired on on the road to the airport, which is a notoriously dangerous road. In fact, it's often described as the most dangerous road in the world. So this is treated as a fairly common and understandable incident that there would be a shooting like this on that road. And I was on that road myself, and it is a really treacherous place with explosions going off all the time and a lot of checkpoints. What Giuliana told me that I had not realized before is that she wasn't on that road at all. She was on a completely different road that I actually didn't know existed. It's a secured road that you can only enter through the Green Zone and is reserved exclusively for ambassadors and top military officials. So, when Calipari, the Italian security intelligence officer, released her from captivity, they drove directly to the Green Zone, went through the elaborate checkpoint process which everyone must go through to enter the Green Zone, which involves checking in obviously with U.S. forces, and then they drove onto this secured road. And the other thing that Giuliana told me that she's quite frustrated about is the description of the vehicle that fired on her as being part of a checkpoint. She says it wasn't a checkpoint at all. It was simply a tank that was parked on the side of the road that opened fire on them. There was no process of trying to stop the car, she said, or any signals. From her perspective, they were just -- it was just opening fire by a tank. The other thing she told me that was surprising to me was that they were fired on from behind. Because I think part of what we're hearing is that the U.S. soldiers opened fire on their car, because they didn't know who they were, and they were afraid. It was self-defense, they were afraid. The fear, of course, is that their car might blow up or that they might come under attack themselves. And what Giuliana Sgrena really stressed with me was that she -- the bullet that injured her so badly and that killed Calipari, came from behind, entered the back seat of the car. And the only person who was not severely injured in the car was the driver, and she said that this is because the shots weren't coming from the front or even from the side. They were coming from behind, i.e. they were driving away. So, the idea that this was an act of self-defense, I think becomes much more questionable. And that detail may explain why there's some reticence to give up the vehicle for inspection. Because if indeed the majority of the gunfire is coming from behind, then clearly, they were firing from -- they were firing at a car that was driving away from them.

There's more....

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/2 5/1516242&mode=thread&tid=25

Why won't the US let the Italians inspect the car? The Italians purchased the car from the rental company so they can do forensics. The US won't let them have the car. Why not? Hello? Bueller? Bueller?

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GD28Ak01.html

Klein then gave an extensive in

Naomi Klein has interviewed Giuliana Sgrena in Rome. The revelations in this Democracy Now interview of Klein significantly challenge the stories we've heard thus far in the press:

One of the things that we keep hearing is that she was fired on on the road to the airport, which is a notoriously dangerous road. In fact, it's often described as the most dangerous road in the world. So this is treated as a fairly common and understandable incident that there would be a shooting like this on that road. And I was on that road myself, and it is a really treacherous place with explosions going off all the time and a lot of checkpoints. What Giuliana told me that I had not realized before is that she wasn't on that road at all. She was on a completely different road that I actually didn't know existed. It's a secured road that you can only enter through the Green Zone and is reserved exclusively for ambassadors and top military officials. So, when Calipari, the Italian security intelligence officer, released her from captivity, they drove directly to the Green Zone, went through the elaborate checkpoint process which everyone must go through to enter the Green Zone, which involves checking in obviously with U.S. forces, and then they drove onto this secured road. And the other thing that Giuliana told me that she's quite frustrated about is the description of the vehicle that fired on her as being part of a checkpoint. She says it wasn't a checkpoint at all. It was simply a tank that was parked on the side of the road that opened fire on them. There was no process of trying to stop the car, she said, or any signals. From her perspective, they were just -- it was just opening fire by a tank. The other thing she told me that was surprising to me was that they were fired on from behind. Because I think part of what we're hearing is that the U.S. soldiers opened fire on their car, because they didn't know who they were, and they were afraid. It was self-defense, they were afraid. The fear, of course, is that their car might blow up or that they might come under attack themselves. And what Giuliana Sgrena really stressed with me was that she -- the bullet that injured her so badly and that killed Calipari, came from behind, entered the back seat of the car. And the only person who was not severely injured in the car was the driver, and she said that this is because the shots weren't coming from the front or even from the side. They were coming from behind, i.e. they were driving away. So, the idea that this was an act of self-defense, I think becomes much more questionable. And that detail may explain why there's some reticence to give up the vehicle for inspection. Because if indeed the majority of the gunfire is coming from behind, then clearly, they were firing from -- they were firing at a car that was driving away from them.

There's more....

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/2 5/1516242&mode=thread&tid=25

Why won't the US let the Italians inspect the car? The Italians purchased the car from the rental company so they can do forensics. The US won't let them have the car. Why not? Hello? Bueller? Bueller?

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GD28Ak01.html

Klein then gave an extensive in

Naomi Klein has interviewed Giuliana Sgrena in Rome. The revelations in this Democracy Now interview of Klein significantly challenge the stories we've heard thus far in the press:

One of the things that we keep hearing is that she was fired on on the road to the airport, which is a notoriously dangerous road. In fact, it's often described as the most dangerous road in the world. So this is treated as a fairly common and understandable incident that there would be a shooting like this on that road. And I was on that road myself, and it is a really treacherous place with explosions going off all the time and a lot of checkpoints. What Giuliana told me that I had not realized before is that she wasn't on that road at all. She was on a completely different road that I actually didn't know existed. It's a secured road that you can only enter through the Green Zone and is reserved exclusively for ambassadors and top military officials. So, when Calipari, the Italian security intelligence officer, released her from captivity, they drove directly to the Green Zone, went through the elaborate checkpoint process which everyone must go through to enter the Green Zone, which involves checking in obviously with U.S. forces, and then they drove onto this secured road. And the other thing that Giuliana told me that she's quite frustrated about is the description of the vehicle that fired on her as being part of a checkpoint. She says it wasn't a checkpoint at all. It was simply a tank that was parked on the side of the road that opened fire on them. There was no process of trying to stop the car, she said, or any signals. From her perspective, they were just -- it was just opening fire by a tank. The other thing she told me that was surprising to me was that they were fired on from behind. Because I think part of what we're hearing is that the U.S. soldiers opened fire on their car, because they didn't know who they were, and they were afraid. It was self-defense, they were afraid. The fear, of course, is that their car might blow up or that they might come under attack themselves. And what Giuliana Sgrena really stressed with me was that she -- the bullet that injured her so badly and that killed Calipari, came from behind, entered the back seat of the car. And the only person who was not severely injured in the car was the driver, and she said that this is because the shots weren't coming from the front or even from the side. They were coming from behind, i.e. they were driving away. So, the idea that this was an act of self-defense, I think becomes much more questionable. And that detail may explain why there's some reticence to give up the vehicle for inspection. Because if indeed the majority of the gunfire is coming from behind, then clearly, they were firing from -- they were firing at a car that was driving away from them.

There's more....

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/2 5/1516242&mode=thread&tid=25

Why won't the US let the Italians inspect the car? The Italians purchased the car from the rental company so they can do forensics. The US won't let them have the car. Why not? Hello? Bueller? Bueller?

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GD28Ak01.html

Klein then gave an extensive in

Naomi Klein has interviewed Giuliana Sgrena in Rome. The revelations in this Democracy Now interview of Klein significantly challenge the stories we've heard thus far in the press:

One of the things that we keep hearing is that she was fired on on the road to the airport, which is a notoriously dangerous road. In fact, it's often described as the most dangerous road in the world. So this is treated as a fairly common and understandable incident that there would be a shooting like this on that road. And I was on that road myself, and it is a really treacherous place with explosions going off all the time and a lot of checkpoints. What Giuliana told me that I had not realized before is that she wasn't on that road at all. She was on a completely different road that I actually didn't know existed. It's a secured road that you can only enter through the Green Zone and is reserved exclusively for ambassadors and top military officials. So, when Calipari, the Italian security intelligence officer, released her from captivity, they drove directly to the Green Zone, went through the elaborate checkpoint process which everyone must go through to enter the Green Zone, which involves checking in obviously with U.S. forces, and then they drove onto this secured road. And the other thing that Giuliana told me that she's quite frustrated about is the description of the vehicle that fired on her as being part of a checkpoint. She says it wasn't a checkpoint at all. It was simply a tank that was parked on the side of the road that opened fire on them. There was no process of trying to stop the car, she said, or any signals. From her perspective, they were just -- it was just opening fire by a tank. The other thing she told me that was surprising to me was that they were fired on from behind. Because I think part of what we're hearing is that the U.S. soldiers opened fire on their car, because they didn't know who they were, and they were afraid. It was self-defense, they were afraid. The fear, of course, is that their car might blow up or that they might come under attack themselves. And what Giuliana Sgrena really stressed with me was that she -- the bullet that injured her so badly and that killed Calipari, came from behind, entered the back seat of the car. And the only person who was not severely injured in the car was the driver, and she said that this is because the shots weren't coming from the front or even from the side. They were coming from behind, i.e. they were driving away. So, the idea that this was an act of self-defense, I think becomes much more questionable. And that detail may explain why there's some reticence to give up the vehicle for inspection. Because if indeed the majority of the gunfire is coming from behind, then clearly, they were firing from -- they were firing at a car that was driving away from them.

There's more....

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/2 5/1516242&mode=thread&tid=25

Why won't the US let the Italians inspect the car? The Italians purchased the car from the rental company so they can do forensics. The US won't let them have the car. Why not? Hello? Bueller? Bueller?

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GD28Ak01.html

Klein then gave an extensive in

Naomi Klein has interviewed Giuliana Sgrena in Rome. The revelations in this Democracy Now interview of Klein significantly challenge the stories we've heard thus far in the press:

One of the things that we keep hearing is that she was fired on on the road to the airport, which is a notoriously dangerous road. In fact, it's often described as the most dangerous road in the world. So this is treated as a fairly common and understandable incident that there would be a shooting like this on that road. And I was on that road myself, and it is a really treacherous place with explosions going off all the time and a lot of checkpoints. What Giuliana told me that I had not realized before is that she wasn't on that road at all. She was on a completely different road that I actually didn't know existed. It's a secured road that you can only enter through the Green Zone and is reserved exclusively for ambassadors and top military officials. So, when Calipari, the Italian security intelligence officer, released her from captivity, they drove directly to the Green Zone, went through the elaborate checkpoint process which everyone must go through to enter the Green Zone, which involves checking in obviously with U.S. forces, and then they drove onto this secured road. And the other thing that Giuliana told me that she's quite frustrated about is the description of the vehicle that fired on her as being part of a checkpoint. She says it wasn't a checkpoint at all. It was simply a tank that was parked on the side of the road that opened fire on them. There was no process of trying to stop the car, she said, or any signals. From her perspective, they were just -- it was just opening fire by a tank. The other thing she told me that was surprising to me was that they were fired on from behind. Because I think part of what we're hearing is that the U.S. soldiers opened fire on their car, because they didn't know who they were, and they were afraid. It was self-defense, they were afraid. The fear, of course, is that their car might blow up or that they might come under attack themselves. And what Giuliana Sgrena really stressed with me was that she -- the bullet that injured her so badly and that killed Calipari, came from behind, entered the back seat of the car. And the only person who was not severely injured in the car was the driver, and she said that this is because the shots weren't coming from the front or even from the side. They were coming from behind, i.e. they were driving away. So, the idea that this was an act of self-defense, I think becomes much more questionable. And that detail may explain why there's some reticence to give up the vehicle for inspection. Because if indeed the majority of the gunfire is coming from behind, then clearly, they were firing from -- they were firing at a car that was driving away from them.

There's more....

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/2 5/1516242&mode=thread&tid=25

Why won't the US let the Italians inspect the car? The Italians purchased the car from the rental company so they can do forensics. The US won't let them have the car. Why not? Hello? Bueller? Bueller?

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GD28Ak01.html

Klein then gave an extensive in

Naomi Klein has interviewed Giuliana Sgrena in Rome. The revelations in this Democracy Now interview of Klein significantly challenge the stories we've heard thus far in the press:

One of the things that we keep hearing is that she was fired on on the road to the airport, which is a notoriously dangerous road. In fact, it's often described as the most dangerous road in the world. So this is treated as a fairly common and understandable incident that there would be a shooting like this on that road. And I was on that road myself, and it is a really treacherous place with explosions going off all the time and a lot of checkpoints. What Giuliana told me that I had not realized before is that she wasn't on that road at all. She was on a completely different road that I actually didn't know existed. It's a secured road that you can only enter through the Green Zone and is reserved exclusively for ambassadors and top military officials. So, when Calipari, the Italian security intelligence officer, released her from captivity, they drove directly to the Green Zone, went through the elaborate checkpoint process which everyone must go through to enter the Green Zone, which involves checking in obviously with U.S. forces, and then they drove onto this secured road. And the other thing that Giuliana told me that she's quite frustrated about is the description of the vehicle that fired on her as being part of a checkpoint. She says it wasn't a checkpoint at all. It was simply a tank that was parked on the side of the road that opened fire on them. There was no process of trying to stop the car, she said, or any signals. From her perspective, they were just -- it was just opening fire by a tank. The other thing she told me that was surprising to me was that they were fired on from behind. Because I think part of what we're hearing is that the U.S. soldiers opened fire on their car, because they didn't know who they were, and they were afraid. It was self-defense, they were afraid. The fear, of course, is that their car might blow up or that they might come under attack themselves. And what Giuliana Sgrena really stressed with me was that she -- the bullet that injured her so badly and that killed Calipari, came from behind, entered the back seat of the car. And the only person who was not severely injured in the car was the driver, and she said that this is because the shots weren't coming from the front or even from the side. They were coming from behind, i.e. they were driving away. So, the idea that this was an act of self-defense, I think becomes much more questionable. And that detail may explain why there's some reticence to give up the vehicle for inspection. Because if indeed the majority of the gunfire is coming from behind, then clearly, they were firing from -- they were firing at a car that was driving away from them.

There's more....

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/2 5/1516242&mode=thread&tid=25

Why won't the US let the Italians inspect the car? The Italians purchased the car from the rental company so they can do forensics. The US won't let them have the car. Why not? Hello? Bueller? Bueller?

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GD28Ak01.html

Klein then gave an extensive in

For more background information on this shooting, watch and/or hear Giuliana Sgrena's most recent discussion of the topic on the Wednesday, April 27, 2005 edition of Democracy Now!

Some highlights, in my opinion:

• This was a controlled road they were on, not the usual airport road. (You might reasonably expect embassy traffic on this road, not enemy forces.)
• She says that the car was slowing down because they were coming up to a turn, and couldn't be going fast because they'd just gone through water.
• She and the person who was killed were both shot from behind (the US story, I gather is they were fired on from in front).

It's unfortunate but if you choose to negotiate with kidnappers (and thereby encourage more kidnapping) and further don't tell someone who's subject to daily suicide car bombs that you're going to be speeding down a road that is infamous for daily suicide car bombs, is it any surprise this happened?

If you're a hardcore lefty, what are you going to listen to?

Pacifica network perhaps?
"Democracy Now?"
They've been on the air "for over 50 yrs.".

They regularly have Zinn and Chomsky on, as well as a host of other real left vs the
latte left-I wear a slogan t-shirt to visually name drop to co-opt legitimacy in the absence of holding real values and beliefs themselves people.

If you have an MP3 player you can use in the car, you could simply copy the MP3 file(s) over directly...

Democracy Now! makes its entire shows available in MP3 and OGG. It's about the most informative show out there. It's liberal-libertarian and is regrettably pro-choice, but mostly deals with issues about oppressed people from around the world. Domestic issues are generally limited to libertarian issues such as privacy, analysis of the mainstream media, etc., and to liberal issues such as race relations.

If forced, I'd refuse to comply. Yes, doing so will park you in jail. Blogs are publications and are often widely syndicated; they're often used as sources for major broadcast and dead tree news stories. ThinkSecret is as legitimate as the Talon; well, bad example on the latter.

Trade secrets are not national security. ThinkSecret and the other folks weren't trafficing in them (selling them to competitors) which would be industrial espionage; they were writing news articles about them.

Is The Register a legitimate news service? Is Tomshardware? Is Slashdot? Is Democracy Now? What about al-Jazeera? Fox News? Who gets to decide what constitutes a "legitimate" and an "illegitmate" news agency?

I love the Daily show but.... I unfortunately I understand why I love it, and all the rest of the Blue state'ers probably do too. Its the only American news show, or even fake news show, that people who aren't right wing wackos can watch since Bush assumed his throne, since 9/11 and especially since Bush got reelected. The Daily Show's popularity is almost directly corellated to the rise of Fox News and George W. We all fled to it to escape reality. Some people maybe fled to CNN or ABC but they all turned in to pale echos of Fox News, shameless flag waving after 9/11, their insane rush to war in Iraq, so we had to flee them too so we all landed on the Daily Show. When I tune in CNN I can barely tell it from Fox lately, except maybe Fox has more hard news.

So we were all happily watching Jon Stewart, havin' a good laugh, and figuring the nightmare would be over in November. America would come to its senses and put a pathetic excuse for a Democrat in the White House, lesser of two evils ya know. He would suck but nothing could be as bad as George W.

Two problems developed:

- While were off escaping from reality, the Christian fundamentalists, the neocons, the hawks, Karl Rove and the rest played a deadly serious game to stay in power at all costs, they played hard ball and they won, while we were all off pretending Jon could just poke fun at them, everyone would see he was right and there was no way they could win. BUSHES REELECTION IS ALL JON'S FAULT....WAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH.

- Somehow the Democratic party nominated the absolute most pathetic candidate they could find, if you went looking for the absolute most pathetic candidate to nominate for President you couldn't have found anybody worse.

So at this point we are trapped, we have only three options:

A. Stop watching television or at least the news
B. Watch the Daily show and have a half hour respite from the insanity that has siezed hold of America. Unfortunately its just escapism, pretending that if Jon makes a joke out of something horrible the White House did today that its must not be so bad, well unfortunately it still is.
C. Watch the network news and just lose it, and start yelling at the TV,

"How can you people be so stupid"
"How did you all fall for that"
"He is lieing, can't you tell he is lieing, he is really obviously lieing, how did you fall for that"
"When did CNN U.S. get bought out by Fox News?

That's pretty much all I did during the run up to the Iraq war. It was driving the family nuts everytime the news came on and I started yelling they are lieing about the WMD's and about the ties to Al Qaida, the RPV's spraying American cities with Anthrax and Saring, and about the "mushroom cloud", just so they can sucker Congress, the networks and the American people in to backing a war no one in their right mind would have backed otherwise.

Its what I do lately when I see John Negroponte getting appointed head of this new monster of a national intelligence agency and all these politicians drooling as they praise him as a great diplomat and statesman, and all these 9/11 families and 9/11 commission, god bless them, naively giving the right wing the cover they needed to create this monster that makes the KGB look puny, the right wing all the while acting reluctant about it as they salivate about going back to the good old day of the '50's and '60's when the CIA was an out of control rogue agency toppling elected government after elected government.

This is John "Death Squads are Us" Negroponte who was ambassador to Honduras during the Contra part of Iran Contra and the reign of terror of the CIA trained Battalion 3-16 whose specialty was torture and summary executions.

He has numerous times, under oath said he was unaware of any human rights abuses in Honduras while he was there though death squads tortured hundreds, if not thousands of people, he was briefed on it, he knew about, he

During the 2000 presidential election ChoicePoint, gave Florida officials a list with the names of 8,000 ex-felons to "scrub" from their list of voters. But it turns out none on the list were guilty of felonies, only misdemeanors.

I don't believe that this is entirely correct. According to Palast's book there were many scrubbed felons that had their voting rights reinstated either by Florida or another state where they committed their felony. This fact was conveniently ignored when the scrub list was created.

I'd love to see some citations concerning some of the other allegations, but this post, modded informative, is nothing more than cut-n-paste .

Please cite your sources if you would like to maintain any respectability.

O'Harrow explores how the government is teaming up with private companies to collect massive amounts of data on citizens and how, he writes, "More than ever before, the details about our lives are no longer our own. They belong to the companies that collect them, and the government agencies that buy or demand them in the name of keeping us safe."

By 'order of magnitude too high' you meant that there could easily have been only 99,999 casualties, right? ;-) If you were using the more common usage and meant that there might have only been 10,000 take a look at the Iraq Body Count site. They have been tracking all confirmed media reports of casualties, and the current minimum is 15,671.

Yeah, because Worldcom would never break the law. Well, there was that one time when they perpetrated the largest case of accounting fraud in US histroy a couple years ago. But that's all behind us now. I'm sure George Bush's tort reform will arrive just in time. We must curb those nasty class action lawsuits you know, they're killing the American entrepreneurial spirit.

Now, let's whip up some irrational hatred for their network's spam policy and forget all that. Cue Emmanuel Goldstein bleating like a sheep in 3, 2, 1.... "We are at war with the spammers. We have always been at war with the spammers. ISP's are hiding behind common carrier status. The only way to defeat the spammers is to revoke the ISP's common carrier status! [Goldstein]: 'Common carrier status protects you. It prevents you from having your communications monitored around the clock by the government and ISPs. Without common caaaah [sheep bleating] baaah baaaaah!' Crimethinker! Oldthinker! Hold ISPs responsible for spam! All over America this morning there were irrepressible spontaneous demonstrations when workers marched out of cubicles and offices and paraded through the streets with banners voicing their gratitude to our President for the new, happy life which his wise leadership has bestowed upon us. Here are some of the completed figures. Spammers Executed-"

"classify material that shouldn't have been?"

Answer is, depends on what "you" think should or shouldn't be hidden. And any two "yous" would give a different answer.

Generally speaking, they want to classify more data, and restrict it, it's been in the news a lot off and on.

You are not signed in, so I will only provide one generic example for you, the case of Sibel Edmonds. (scroll down the page or run your own search on that name) So there ya go. In this case the feds want to classify, or to re classify the testimony of one of their own-a serious whistleblower- who gave credible and detailed evidence of (some aspects thereof to be accurate) government prior knowledge to the 9-11 attacks and some other related crimes.

There's more, google, intelligently selected keywords and phrases and paying closer attention than the median-norm to the news on a *daily* basis, beyond the headlines I mean, works quite well for answering US political questions like that.

There is absolutely no need for tin foil hat isms, the US government provides all the bona fide strange conspiracies and crimes that anyone could ever use. All the evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors" is hiding in plain sight,a huge variety, hence they are desparately trying to get a handle on that evidence, without appearing to do so, and to get it re hidden back buried down deep in the bowels of chronically and criminally corrupt bureaucracy, by more advanced obfuscation, either by outright law,agency dictate, e branch edict,or merely because "they can", and just mumble "national security"..

They got caught with their pants down by the rapid rise of the internet and the way information is able to be found, even by "the common man", so they want to stifle it. It is by the slow boiling frog technique, but the fire is lit, and the frog is sitting there enjoying the hot tub action. It's up to people who have an interest in the rapidly approaching archaic and close-to anachronistic concepts of "freedom" and "honesty" to help wake the durn frog up, and get him to abandon the heated pot of boiling "political awareness" obscurity.

I agree with you that higher ranking USMIL people probably have an axe to grind with respect to Seymour Hersch, but you should also be aware that he's widely considered to be a conduit for leaks from some CIA elements and he hasn't been doing any actual on-the-ground investigative journalism in recent years as compared to Robert Fisk who is one of the few Western journalist to have interviewed Osama bin Laden, has actually physically visited the places that he reports on as a non-embedded (e.g. traditionally free agent) report, placing his own life at risk at times.

Yes, you can clearly see that he has a bias, but he's upfront about it and it's always clear in his writing which parts are his opinion and which are the factual experiences that he's recording.

With regard to Wikinews, I think that it's interesting that the "neutral" and "non biased" articles about (to take just one example) the Indonesian earthquake disaster don't mention the shenanigans going on over the withholding of disaster relief to "rebel" strongholds in Aceh and the request from representatives of the "rebels" that international aid is not delivered into the hands of the government. This is covered in one of the few independent and courageous news sources these days: Amy Goodman's "DemocracyNOW!" radio program. Here's a sample from January 7th:

Indonesian Military Beats Acehnese, Bars Journalists Meanwhile, Australian journalists who witnessed a confrontation between Indonesian soldiers and Acehnese yesterday were ordered to leave the area and warned not to report on the incident. The incident occurred just 25 miles from the provincial capital Banda Aceh, the centre of the relief operation spearheaded by US and Australian forces in Aceh. Government soldiers fired into the air and beat up Acehnese they claimed were supporters of the Free Aceh Movement, known as the GAM. The incident prompted special forces Kopassus soldiers to confront The Australian's representatives in the area. A Kopassus Commander told the journalists, "Your duties here are to observe the disaster, not the conflict between TNI (the Indonesian army) and GAM. Kopassus ordered the Australian journalist and photographer to leave. The Indonesian military has killed thousands of Acehnese in the conflict. Aceh has been under martial law and sealed off for years. The Kopassus are infamous for their extreme brutality during the occupation of East Timor.

If Wikinews isn't reporting this sort of stuff in order to avoid appearing "contentious" then it's providing a misleading picture of the actual physical facts of the world. Not very impressive.

You are hopelessly naive. The real world is very different from what you may believe about it. There is so much written about the real world, start with reading Confessions of an Economic Hit Man for example.

It goes like this: US government, through organisations it openly controls like CIA and those it controls (to a large extent, not absolutely) indirectly (World Bank, WTO, etc.) pressures developing countries into opening the economy, privatizing state enterprises, allowing American corporations to operate there outside American laws and prevents the local governments from interfering too much.

Consider how the US government pressed Bolivian government through the World Bank to privatise even the water supplies and what that led to.

Most of the damage done to the world is done in the name of US interests and either by US directly, US corporate machine or US-sponsored puppets.

What you know is just the public consumption version of "How world economy works". This version was prepared by countless PR specialists serving their corporate masters (and corporate-controlled US government). This isn't paranoia on my part, it's just harsh reality. Read/watch/listen to anything created by "dissidents", open your mind, eyes and ears and try to dig a bit deeper into their concerns. I guarantee, when you learn the facts, you would no longer accept the standard-issue rose-colored glasses you were given.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/1 0/149259

stolenelection2004.com
votergate.tv
Outrage in Ohio
Was the Ohio Election Honest and Fair?
Kerry Won
Shoplifting the Presidency?
Ultimate Felony Against Democracy

Surprising Pattern of Florida's Election Results
votes for party president versus voters registered
exit_poll(gif)
Florida2004chart

openvotingconsortium.org
verifiedvoting.org/eirs
electionprotection2004.org
The Rise of Open-Source Politics
cpsr.net

Presume once congress & the administration are aware to the purported problems they'll respond rapidly with "Help America Vote Act - II".

stolenelection2004.com
votergate.tv
Outrage in Ohio Was the Ohio Election Honest and Fair?
Kerry Won
Shoplifting the Presidency?
Ultimate Felony Against Democracy

Surprising Pattern of Florida's Election Results
votes for party president versus voters registered
exit_poll(gif)
Florida2004chart

openvotingconsortium.org
verifiedvoting.org/eirs
electionprotection2004.org
The Rise of Open-Source Politics
http://www.cpsr.net

Presume once congress & the administration are aware to the purported problems they respond rapidly with "Help America Vote Act - II".

The listing of "Dirty Tricks" is astonishing. To quote one portion of what's on the page:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/0 1/1513250

In Pittsburgh, fliers were handed out on what looked like county letterhead that claimed voting had been extended an extra day "due to immense voter turnout expected on Tuesday." The fliers said Republicans should vote on Tuesday and Democrats should vote on Wednesday.

I really don't understand why people are like this. I personally think that it's more important that this country upholds its democracy, regardless of who wins today.