Search

band annie's Weblog

I have a parallel blog in French at http://anniebannie.net

Category

USA

Dirty Wars: Jeremy Scahill and Rick Rowley’s New Film Exposes Hidden Truths of Covert U.S. Warfare

< Previous Story |

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

click on image
amyg   Premiering this week at the Sundance Film Festival in Utah, the new documentary “Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield” follows investigative reporter Jeremy Scahill to Afghanistan, Somalia and Yemen as he chases down the hidden truths behind America’s expanding covert wars. We’re joined by Scahill and the film’s director, Rick Rowley, an independent journalist with Big Noise Films. “We’re looking right now at a reality that President Obama has essentially extended the very policies that many of his supporters once opposed under President Bush,” says Scahill, author of the bestseller “Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army” and a forthcoming book named after his film. “One of the things that humbles both of us is that when you arrive in a village in Afghanistan and knock on someone’s door, you’re the first American they’ve seen since the Americans that kicked that door in and killed half their family,” Rowley says. “We promised them that we would do everything we could to make their stories be heard in the U.S. … Finally we’re able to keep those promises.” [includes rush transcript]
Guests:

Jeremy Scahill, producer and writer of the documentary film Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield, which just premiered here at the Sundance Film Festival. He is national security correspondent for The Nation, author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army.

Richard Rowley, director of the documentary film Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield, which just premiered here at the Sundance Film Festival. He is an independent journalist with Big Noise Films.

Security audit finds dev OUTSOURCED his JOB to China to goof off at work

    Cunning scheme netted him ‘best in company’ awards

By Iain Thomson in San Francisco • Get more from this author

Posted in Business16th January 2013 01:29 GMT

A security audit of a US critical infrastructure company last year revealed that its star developer had outsourced his own job to a Chinese subcontractor and was spending all his work time playing around on the internet.

The firm’s telecommunications supplier Verizon was called in after the company set up a basic VPN system with two-factor authentication so staff could work at home. The VPN traffic logs showed a regular series of logins to the company’s main server from Shenyang, China, using the credentials of the firm’s top programmer, “Bob”.

“The company’s IT personnel were sure that the issue had to do with some kind of zero day malware that was able to initiate VPN connections from Bob’s desktop workstation via external proxy and then route that VPN traffic to China, only to be routed back to their concentrator,” said Verizon. “Yes, it is a bit of a convoluted theory, and like most convoluted theories, an incorrect one.”

After getting permission to study Bob’s computer habits, Verizon investigators found that he had hired a software consultancy in Shenyang to do his programming work for him, and had FedExed them his two-factor authentication token so they could log into his account. He was paying them a fifth of his six-figure salary to do the work and spent the rest of his time on other activities.

The analysis of his workstation found hundreds of PDF invoices from the Chinese contractors and determined that Bob’s typical work day consisted of:

9:00 a.m. – Arrive and surf Reddit for a couple of hours. Watch cat videos

11:30 a.m. – Take lunch

1:00 p.m. – Ebay time

2:00-ish p.m – Facebook updates, LinkedIn

4:30 p.m. – End-of-day update e-mail to management

5:00 p.m. – Go home

The scheme worked very well for Bob. In his performance assessments by the firm’s human resources department, he was the firm’s top coder for many quarters and was considered expert in C, C++, Perl, Java, Ruby, PHP, and Python.

Further investigation found that the enterprising Bob had actually taken jobs with other firms and had outsourced that work too, netting him hundreds of thousands of dollars in profit as well as lots of time to hang around on internet messaging boards and checking out the latest Detective Mittens video.

Bob is no longer employed by the firm. ®

source

Death of a Prisoner: The Tragic Return Home of a Guantánamo Bay Detainee

[youtube http://youtu.be/IO2gwKLKHOo?]

For Wilmington 10, Perdue has chance to right injustice four decades old

see Democracy Now for more on the topic 
(at ’58)

Connie Tindall, a member of the Wilmington Ten, speaks at a press conference Thursday outside the State Capitol building in Raleigh in which the group called on Gov. Beverly Perdue to pardon them. Sitting (from left to right) are Wilmington Ten members Willie Earl Vereen; Benjamin Chavis Jr.; James McKoy; Marvin Patrick; and Willie Moore, the brother of late Wilmington 10 member Wayne Moore. Staff Photo By PATRICK GANNON/StarNews

Buy Photo Staff Photo By PATRICK GANNON

Published: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 at 7:26 p.m.
Last Modified: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 at 7:26 p.m.

Before Gov. Bev Perdue leaves office, she has the opportunity to close the book on one of the ugliest chapters in recent Wilmington history: the convictions of nine black men and a white woman whose trial trampled justice and their constitutional rights. Their case is why “the Wilmington 10” are well known far beyond the confines of Southeastern North Carolina.

They were accused of firebombing of a white-owned grocery store in a black neighborhood during a period of fear and violence. Their sentences were long ago overturned, and neither they nor anyone else has since been charged.

Now they seek a pardon, the only thing that stands in the way of clearing the slate. Petitions signed by more than 14,000 people sit on the governor’s desk, and the representatives of the Wilmington Ten Pardons of Innocence Project say they will deliver 130,000 more signatures today received via the online petition website Change.org.

It has been almost 42 years since Mike’s Grocery burned at the hands of mob violence on Feb. 6, 1971, during protests that began over the school desegregation and quickly turned violent. White supremacists fueled the volatile situation by confronting black protestors and roaming armed through black neighborhoods. Residents of both races were caught in the crossfire, including the police, firefighters and emergency workers who had to brave the chaos to put out fires, both literal and figurative.

The Rev. Benjamin Chavis Jr. was brought in to help coordinate a boycott of the New Hanover County Schools over the pace and depth of court-ordered school desegregation. The defendants, who became known as the Wilmington 10, were accused of conspiracy, and arson. They received lengthy prison sentences.

After more than 40 years, it becomes harder to sort through the details to find the truth. But what is crystal clear is that justice was not done.

Their convictions were based on thin evidence that relied heavily on eyewitnesses whose credibility was in serious doubt and who received special favors in return for their testimony. Three witnesses, starting with the one who provided the most incriminating testimony, later recanted.

There is evidence that some of the members were seen elsewhere at the time of the firebombing, and a judge expunged the criminal record of one member, Joe Wright, before his death in 1990. In 1978 Gov. Jim Hunt commuted their sentences, but did not issue a pardon. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the sentences in 1980, noting that constitutional rights were violated, that the prosecutor knew or should have known that the key witness committed perjury, and that prosecution withheld information that could have helped the defense.

Now there is reason to believe that prosecutor Jay Stroud tried to keep blacks off the jury, although he told the StarNews that his notes indicating such an effort have been misinterpreted.

Perdue has a number of options, ranging from a full pardon to no action at all. No matter her decision, she will anger a portion of the community; emotions are still raw even four decades later.

But in her deliberations Perdue should be concerned only about the 10 people who did not receive a fair trial, who spent several years in prison and who have spent the rest of their lives with the shadow of that troubled time hanging over their heads.

The governor should issue the pardon because it is the right thing to do.

source

522761_500364233318950_1595629151_n

TV’s most Islamophobic show

                                 

With its portraits of Brody and Roya Hammad, “Homeland” warns that Muslims are a hidden danger to fellow Americans

By

  • TV's most Islamophobic showClaire Danes in “Homeland” (Credit: Showtime/Ronen Akerman)

I started watching “Homeland” because I was bored. All of my favorite shows were coming to a (season’s) end, and I needed something new to watch. I’m drawn to smart scripted dramas, but I was immediately suspicious of the show when I learned that its creators were also the ones behind “24,” the Fox drama that somehow became the chief piece of evidence for the effectiveness of torture and was a favorite of Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh.

But I kept an open mind and was riveted by the first episode, which laid out the intriguing mystery: Is Marine Sgt. Nicholas Brody the POW who’s been turned against his country by al-Qaida and its leader, the nefarious Abu Nazir? Soon CIA agent Carrie Mathison is seen spying on Brody and family in scenes reminiscent of the Stasi’s voyeurism in the Academy Award-winning film “The Lives of Others.”

But as we learn more about Brody’s back story, the plot becomes increasingly absurd and insidiously Islamophobic.

All the standard stereotypes about Islam and Muslims are reinforced, and it is demonstrated ad nauseam that anyone marked as “Muslim” by race or creed can never be trusted, all via the deceptively unsophisticated bureau-jargon of the government’s top spies. Here are four major, problematic areas (among many others. I couldn’t even get to the oversexed Saudi prince and his international harem):

read on @source

Syria : too Little Too Late

Rime Allaf

Rime Allaf is a Syrian writer. She is on Twitter.

December 5, 2012

In August, when President Obama first stated that Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons would be a “red line,” the message to Assad was loud and clear: Everything else was permissible.

More than three months and many more thousands of Syrian victims later, Obama has inexplicably reiterated this objection. But by warning against the use of chemical weapons, he has once again merely reassured Assad that barrel bombs, missiles, cluster bombs and bullets are acceptable tools to slaughter his people.

Whether by design or by mistake, the Obama administration’s hedging has diminished U.S. influence over Syrians.

What could have been interpreted as political caution in a pre-election climate must be considered in a different context now that Obama has settled comfortably into his second term. In fact, his latest statement sounds rather like a promise: If Assad doesn’t change the current parameters, the U.S. won’t either.

Semantics aside, it is clear that his refusal to increase pressure on the Assad regime, which many had expected would happen in November, means that Obama is encouraging the status quo. Indeed, the only pressure the U.S. seems to have been exerting recently has been on its allies.

The U.S. has done everything it could to impede actions that could have tipped the balance against Assad. From urging its Gulf allies to refrain from arming the resistance, to holding back a fellow NATO member, Turkey, from responding even when the Assad regime shot one of its fighter jets, to refusing to immediately recognize the coalition that the Syrian opposition finally managed to put together, every overt or covert U.S. action has been a protraction of its first response to the uprising, in March 2011. This is when the secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton, said members of Congress had described Assad as a reformer, just days after the massacre of dozens of peaceful demonstrators.

Far from being indecisive on Syria, the U.S. has demonstrated that it is consistent, albeit with a questionable rationale, when it comes to letting Syrians fight it out among themselves before deciding to swoop in, perhaps, when the country is at a breaking point. With most cities destroyed beyond recognition, with some five million refugees and displaced Syrians, with hundreds of thousands disappeared in Assad’s jails and well over 40,000 killed by the regime, and with extremist factions fighting their own battles to boot, it seems that we are now close to such a breaking point.

Could this explain the sudden buzz about chemical weapons? It is peculiar that the U.S. would still rely on the “weapons of mass destruction” line, à la Iraq, to justify intervention of some kind after having lost the moral high ground and allowed the bloodshed to continue unhindered. If the U.S. were counting on eventually playing a leading role at this late stage, it should have factored in Syrians’ current reactions. Whether by design or by mistake, the Obama administration has diminished any influence over Syrians it once had.

Syrians fighting the regime were at first perplexed by Obama’s attitude. With time, they have become more indignant and more determined. Oddly, it was the realization that no help would come without U.S. approval that gave revolutionaries their impetus, bringing the battle to the regime’s ultimate stronghold, Damascus. After the brutality he unleashed all over the country, the horror Assad will try to impose on the capital is certain to reach unimaginable levels. Had the U.S. allowed others to help restrain Assad, the outcome could have been different.

Russia and Iran have actively supported the Assad regime, but the U.S. allowed the massacre to go on. On Monday, Obama said: “Today I want to make it absolutely clear to Assad and those under his command: The world is watching.” Indeed, as Syrians fight for survival, the world is watching — and forming its own opinions.

source

Obama’s Middle East Cynicism

MJ Rosenberg

The U.S. vote against raising the status of Palestine at the United Nations was a deeply cynical move. It was cynical because there is not a chance that President Obama believes that he did the right thing. It is also cynical because, in the name of friendship for Israel, Obama led Israel closer to the cliff.

The last thing a true friend of Israel would have done would be to stand by as Israel demonstrated its almost complete international isolation. Just eight countries backed the Israeli position – the US, Panama, Palau, Canada, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Czech Republic and Micronesia – while 138 voted with the Palestinians. Was this display helpful to Israel?

But Obama was not trying to be helpful. The administration enabled this “disaster” (from Israel’s point of view) because Obama seems to truly not care about Israelis or Palestinians.

Take the two most recent examples. The first was his absolute refusal to express a word of sympathy for the Palestinians killed in the Gaza war. Under previous administrations, certainly under every Democratic administration, sympathy was expressed for the dead and injured on both sides along with a call for an end to the fighting. But Obama would not do that. Even when asked directly his spokesperson at the State Department would only speak of Israel’s pain. (To her credit, Secretary of State Clinton did say that she felt for both sides.)

But not Obama. He is determined not only to demonstrate that there is “no daylight” separating the two countries but that no amount of darkness separates us either.

The argument that he has to behave this way because of the power of the lobby doesn’t hold up. I would be the last person in the world to deny that the lobby is a powerful force in the making of U.S. Middle East policy. But, unless there is some mysterious element to the lobby’s power that I am missing, its ability to intimidate ends when a president is re-elected.

Believing that Obama is worried about Congressional Democrats being punished in 2014 is just as inaccurate. One: that is two years away. Two: Obama has rarely demonstrated (like almost all presidents before him) much concern for the Congressional wing of his party. And, three: the November 6th election demonstrated yet again that Jewish voters do not cast their ballots (or make campaign contributions) based on Israel. Nor do Israel’s fundamentalist Christian backers. Jews are overwhelmingly liberal Democrats and Christian Zionists are conservative Republicans. Those facts seem never to change.

Besides, does Obama really believe that he would lose votes or campaign contributions from Jews and other pro-Israel Americans if he expressed sympathy for dead Palestinian children? Or called on both sides to stop the violence. I hold no brief for the lobby but Obama could have said what he no doubt felt without losing anyone’s support. Even the lobby does not demand that politicians withhold human sympathy.

As for the United Nations vote, Obama could have prevented the huge embarrassment inflicted on both Israel and the United States by telling Israel to “chill.” I am glad he didn’t because I think the vote will be seen by history as a significant step toward Palestinian statehood. But it also delegitimized Israel in the eyes of the world which is a terrible defeat for those of us who care about Israel ultimately achieving peace and security alongside the Palestinians.

And it could easily have been averted if Obama had told Israel that the United States would vote for the resolution and that Israel should, too. In that case, the vote for Palestine’s elevated status would have been unanimous which would have rendered the Palestinian victory meaningless. Unanimous backing for any measure almost always demonstrates the measure’s insignificance. Instead, Israel’s hysteria and America’s arm-twisting against the resolution gave the Palestinians a big victory, a victory that the United States and Israel both elevated to historic proportions.

So why did Obama behave the way he did? I am afraid it is because he does not think Israelis or Palestinians are worth the hassle. If he can avoid dealing with Netanyahu and his vocal backers here, he will. He has more important fish to fry – like the domestic economy and preserving the social safety net.

I understand that but nonetheless ignoring the Israeli-Palestinian issue – by simply parroting the Israeli line – has done terrible damage to America’s standing in the world. Look at the UN vote which was neatly summed up by the front-page New York Times headline: “UN Assembly, In Blow To U.S., Elevates Status of Palestine.” Perhaps it is of no concern of Obama’s that Israel appears utterly isolated, but so does the United States. To put it in crude terms: we look like Israel’s tool.

I will not conclude by expressing the hope that Obama will now do the right thing for Israel, Palestine and, most importantly, the United States by convening negotiations and acting as an “honest broker.” I doubt he can do that anymore both because he has entirely lost the trust of the Arab world and because events have demonstrated, in large part due to this administration, that history can move on without us. But primarily because I do not think President Obama cares enough to invest any time or energy in Middle East peacemaking. He seems not to care that resolving conflict in a vital region of the world is not just some favor we do for people 6000 miles away; it is something we do to defend America’s interests. It’s sad. But above all, it is just cynical.

Postscript: Prime Minister Netanyahu reciprocated President Obama’s misplaced kindness today when he announced that he will build 3000 new settler housing units in the E-1 corridor of the West Bank. This housing, designed to permanently separate the southern West Bank from the northern part and to separate both from Jerusalem would destroy any chance of achieving the two-state solution. It also breaks a specific promise Netanyahu made to Obama.

Additionally, AIPAC is rushing to get Congress to “punish” Palestinians for going to the UN by blocking aid. Netanyahu and his lobby now believe (probably correctly) that Obama will permit them to do whatever they want. This is what the United States gets for its “no daylight” policy and what we taxpayers get for $3.5 billion a year in aid.

source

Thanksgiving Takeaways

By Michael E. Roberts November 21, 2012

For most Americans, Thanksgiving has been as a celebration of giving, a day of thanks—thankful to be surrounded by family and friends. For many Native people, however, the Thanksgiving holiday is associated with a national celebration of “taking,” and is a constant reminder of the colonialization that led to land theft, reservation confinement, and historical atrocities.

The U.S. has long treated Indian religion and creation stories as quaint myths, but it sure holds dearly to its own mythical stories of creation. The colonizer’s myth of the first Thanksgiving is a delightful story where Native nations of the east broke bread with the colonists of the “new world.” Native peoples, however, know the full fabrication of the historical circumstances surrounding this celebration. But one thing that cannot be forgotten is the central role that food plays in this historical pageant. Food takes center stage in this narrative because Native peoples were in control of their food.

Connecting the dots between vibrant Native food systems and economies, however, is far from complicated. Agricultural and food-systems production provided the backbone of trade and exchange for most Indian nations. One aspect of American history rarely receives attention was the U.S. government’s strategy to deliberately starve Indians into submission by deliberately destroying their food systems—whether it was George Washington’s torching of hundreds of thousands of bushels of Iroquois corn, or the willful destruction of the fields and orchards of the Apache and Pueblo people.

Roughly 400 years after this first Thanksgiving, many Native peoples are dependent upon public assistance to eat, including the USDA’s commodity food program. Statistics also tell us that Native people in 22 states receive commodity food, and that approximately one in four Native households is “food insecure,” and do not have enough to eat. Moreover, another one in 10 households is experiencing hunger. We can easily connect the dots between the current state of Native food systems, and Indian peoples’ lack of control, and horrifying Native health statistics.

The way Indian people and Indian nations unconsciously and consciously purchase and eat food should put food systems back as the centerpiece of strategies for food-system restoration, improved economies, and health care, because the loss of traditional diet and adoption of diets high in fat and refined sugars have made Indians more susceptible to the unholy trilogy of diabetes, obesity and heart disease.

Health studies show that six of 10 Native Americans are likely to develop type 2 diabetes—mostly the result of poor dietary health—and have higher instances of obesity and heart disease. It is troubling that diabetes was essentially unknown among Indians in 1912, and still clinically nonexistent in 1930. Today, Indians suffer diabetes more than twice the national average (some places, the rate is much higher), and it is consuming more and more American Indian health-care resources. A final startling fact, from “State of the Science: A Cultural View of Native Americans and Diabetes Prevention.” In it Edwards and Patchell alarmingly report that per-capita health care expenditures in 2003 were $3,803 for each federal prisoner, but only $1,914 per capita in the federal allotment to Indian Health Services. How can we not conclude that spending priorities on health are directly linked to access to care and health outcomes.

At First Nations, we believe that preservation and resurrection of traditional diet is important to the health and healthy economies of Indian country, including food traditions. Agricultural holdings of Native tribes and communities, including range and cropland, constitute more than 47 million of the 54 million acres of Indian trust l. Additionally, tribes own rights to billions of acre-feet of water rights. Together this could afford a strong incentive for renewing Native food systems and food sovereignty. Unfortunately, 70 percent of Indian cropland is leased to non-Indians, as are 20 percent of rangelands, reducing Native control of their food systems. The 8,000 Indian farmers operating on reservations produce few crops for local consumption. This lack of control is at the heart of First Nations’ Native agriculture and food work, and healthy economies and communities built on sound and historically-proven cultural beliefs. Today, we are beginning to see Native communities starting to reclaim control of their food systems.

Many reservation communities lack a vibrant private sector, preventing the economic multiplier effect that benefits most other economies, where one dollar introduced into an economy becomes worth $2 or $3. In many reservation communities, those dollars do not recirculate.

We believe that Indian nations’ controlled food systems is a logical first step. Everyone, even poor people, spend 30 percent to 40 percent of their income on food. A 5,000-person community, with a per-capita income of $8,000, spends between $12 million and $16 million annually on food. This could translate to $25 million to $50 million to the economy, with the side benefit of improved nutrition and health expenditure savings.

We believe that the time is now to restore Indian communities’ control of the assets they own. In doing so, how can we ignore the role of Native-controlled food systems as an opportunity for both healthy bodies and healthy economies for Indian country?

Michael E. Roberts is the president of the First Nations Development Institute.

source

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑