What were they thinking!?
Continued...
Friday, April 30, 2010
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Boycott Arizona over racist immigration law?
Companies based in the State of Arizona are about to be blacklisted. The San Francisco Chronicle reports:
City Attorney Dennis Herrera issued a statement this morning calling for a "sweeping boycott of Arizona and Arizona-based businesses until this unjust law is repealed or invalidated."
The Arizona law, signed by Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday, makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally. Additionally, it makes the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and requires police officers to question those they suspect are illegal immigrants.
Perhaps the Fortune 500 Arizona-based business most vulnerable to a boycott is US Airways.
Make no mistake, it's a racist law. "A law whose real intention is to criminalise migrants, both legal and ‘illegal’, it is to make all brown people a suspect," observes human rights blogger Rick B.
Notwithstanding this observation, anti-immigrant sentiment alone may not be sufficient to account for the new law. Arizona Senate Bill 1070 stands to benefit companies like Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). CCA
CCA is an important employer in some parts of Arizona:
Is a boycott of Arizona justified? It would appear as if the new law is at least as much a product of run-away corporatism as anti-immigrant fanaticism. Given that Arizona politicians have positioned their friends to profit from a racist law at the expense of the whole country, it seems entirely fitting that Arizona-based companies should be made to pay for it.
Make no mistake, it's a racist law. "A law whose real intention is to criminalise migrants, both legal and ‘illegal’, it is to make all brown people a suspect," observes human rights blogger Rick B.
Notwithstanding this observation, anti-immigrant sentiment alone may not be sufficient to account for the new law. Arizona Senate Bill 1070 stands to benefit companies like Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). CCA
has partnered with the federal government to detain close to 1 million undocumented people in the past 5 years… Thanks to political connections and lobby spending, it dominates the industry of immigrant detention. CCA now has close to 10,000 new beds under development in anticipation of continued demand.In an article describing "How politicians, the media, and corporations profit from immigration policies destined to fail," Tanya Golash-Boza writes: "Much of the success of CCA is due to its lobbying efforts and political connections, combined with the increased rates of detention for immigrants." According to The Business of Detention one lobbyist for CCA was "Phillip J. Perry, son-in-law of Vice President Dick Cheney, who was appointed general counsel for DHS [Department of Homeland Security]." In 2007, "CCA spent $3.25 million lobbying members of Congress to approve funding that would ultimately lead to increased spending on immigration detention."
CCA is an important employer in some parts of Arizona:
As a partnership prison, CCA [Corrections Corporations of America] has been credited with helping Pinal County, Arizona, with being ranked No. 1 in a Money Magazine survey ranking the top 25 counties that have experienced the greatest job growth in the past eight years.CCA facilities in Arizona contracting with the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) include the Eloy and Florence correctional centers -- two of nearly one thousand immigration detention facilities nationwide (map). The number of immigrants housed in ICE facilities have increased 300% since 1994. The facilities are funded by federal tax dollars: "Based on the amount budgeted for this fiscal year, U.S. taxpayers will pay about $141 a night — the equivalent of a decent hotel room — for each immigrant detained." CCA boasts that its prisons bring economic benefits: "communities in which CCA facilities are located realize many benefits, including new, career-driven employment opportunities, increased demand for local goods and services, and additional tax revenue." Of course, a company like CCA is not creating new wealth. Rather, it is a mechanism for transferring taxpayer dollars from the many to the few.
Is a boycott of Arizona justified? It would appear as if the new law is at least as much a product of run-away corporatism as anti-immigrant fanaticism. Given that Arizona politicians have positioned their friends to profit from a racist law at the expense of the whole country, it seems entirely fitting that Arizona-based companies should be made to pay for it.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Bangkok: "Fear of losing face" an impediment to compromise?
For those of us hoping that the tragedy in Bangkok Thursday night might have sparked both sides to back away from the abyss and pursue a negotiated settlement, some discouraging news arrived Saturday.
Continued...
Continued...
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Bangkok explosions
Several bloggers were there live Thursday night. They have posted firsthand observations of the aftermath of grenade explosions that rocked central Bangkok.
Will Red Shirt leaders compromise proposal end a bloody Bangkok standoff?
Both sides in the Bangkok standoff face a similar problem: how to sell any negotiated compromise to their supporters. More on this question, and the breaking development that prompts it here.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Thailand: prospects for a negotiated settlement
The tragedy of April 22 in Bangkok provides Thais with a second chance to pause and consider the urgent need to move toward a negotiated settlement to the impasse.
Continued...
Continued...
Major oil spill threat follows Obama reversal on drilling in Gulf of Mexico
It's quite astounding how meek America's big environmental groups have become. It takes a catastrophe for them to show any backbone. AP reports today:
* I thought I had saved a copy of the ad, will post a copy if I ever find it.
A deepwater oil platform that burned for more than a day after a massive explosion sank into the Gulf of Mexico on Thursday, creating the potential for a major spill as it underscored the slim chances that the 11 workers still missing survived...How did major environmental groups actually react to Barack Obama's decision to back peddle on his campaign promise and allow offshore drilling? They thanked him. I'm not kidding. Specifically, pointing to an ecologically sensitive area of the Alaskan coastline Obama had not included among the areas he intended to open for drilling (but had not yet moved to formally protect) a coalition of environmental groups paid for a full-page ad in Politico that read: "Thank you President Obama!"*
The explosion came less than a month after President Barack Obama's decision to open portions of the East Coast to oil and gas exploration, and opponents of the move have seized on the blast as a reason to reverse course.
* I thought I had saved a copy of the ad, will post a copy if I ever find it.
Does "dean position" qualify Elena Kagan to be a Supreme Court Justice?
UPDATES
The fact of the matter is that brilliant scholars invariably turn down offers to serve in administrative posts such a "dean." What talented and fruitful scholar would want to waste day after day attending meetings, fund raising, and carrying out administrative (i.e. management) tasks? A heavyweight in the world of scholarship neither seeks nor desires the title of "dean" on his or her resume. A deanship is akin to an intellectual hibernation. The position amounts to a extended mental sabbatical from the joys and rigors of research and writing.
The media has people thinking that the fact a professor has served time as "dean" is supposed to mean something over and above the kind of work that the position actually entails. And that's a stretch. For example, look at what potential US Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is reported to have accomplished as Dean of Harvard Law School:
Having been newly elevated to the position of Solicitor General, Elena Kagan's demonstratively inept choice of argument in defense of the government's position in a recent Supreme Court case suggests that she is not an especially gifted lawyer.
If you believe that the US Supreme Court ought to be comprised of the best legal minds in the country, it's worth considering that no prominent and successful university dean is likely to be counted as a member of that category.
UPDATE 1: Although I maintain here that a first-rate legal mind is unlikely aspire to be a dean, I'm not saying it could never happen -- just that it would be a far more rare event than the public has been led to believe. Moreover, if such a person existed, it would be ludicrous to maintain that one's "job performance as dean" ought to have a decisive bearing on the question of one's suitability for the highest court in the land. You would want to look at a person's other achievements. In the case of Elena Kagan, Guy-Uriel Charles has done exactly that, noting "a thin publication record."
UPDATE 2: In his essay, Guy-Uriel Charles asks a provocative question:
However, with respect to any particular hire, quality varies considerably. That's because a hiring decisions boils down to timing, a candidate's qualities, institutional priorities, and the idiosyncrasies of a particular hiring committee. Timing counts for a lot. Hence, plenty of second-rate people get hired, even at the best schools.
An unremarkable candidate's elevation to the Dean of Harvard Law School or other top-tier school is even easier to explain. Precisely because the faculty Harvard Law School consists of some of the country's brightest legal minds, relatively few faculty members are going to be particularly eager to serve as dean. Brilliant legal minds are not likely to find today's administrative work -- endless meetings, the new trend of pandering to students as if they were "customers", and of course, fund raising -- particularly appealing. Therefore, a person aspiring to be a dean of Harvard Law School is quite likely to be a second-rate scholar, a social climber, or both.
Of course, the "social currency" of a position such as dean has allowed academic institutions to function for centuries. If there was no prestige attached to such positions, schools would have trouble filling them. And universities might end up having to offer candidates more money to do the job.
Nevertheless, a debased currency of the academic world must not be allowed to have a bearing on who should fulfill one of the country's most powerful positions.
[Likely US Supreme Court pick Elena Kagan] came to Harvard Law School at a critical time in its history and determined that it was her job to make the biggest, richest, and most famous law school in the world also the best... She saw that was her job; that was her role. She threw herself into it wholeheartedly. And she succeeded.When the American public is informed that professor so-and-so has served as "dean" of this or that school or department of a university, they tend think this fact significant; they have been led to believe that being a dean is a testimony to the superiority of a person's intelligence or scholarship. The media has contributed to this perception. Book publishers, for example, will tout a particular academic author once served as "Dean of this or that faculty at (Name of University)." Journalists who don't know any better -- or have an agenda -- will sometimes bombard readers with this academic title as if it signifies something important, as indicated by some recent articles in support of Elena Kagan to serve as Supreme Court Justice in place of retiring Justice Paul Stevens.
- Charles Fried, "Everyone's Dean" in New Republic/NPR
The fact of the matter is that brilliant scholars invariably turn down offers to serve in administrative posts such a "dean." What talented and fruitful scholar would want to waste day after day attending meetings, fund raising, and carrying out administrative (i.e. management) tasks? A heavyweight in the world of scholarship neither seeks nor desires the title of "dean" on his or her resume. A deanship is akin to an intellectual hibernation. The position amounts to a extended mental sabbatical from the joys and rigors of research and writing.
The media has people thinking that the fact a professor has served time as "dean" is supposed to mean something over and above the kind of work that the position actually entails. And that's a stretch. For example, look at what potential US Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is reported to have accomplished as Dean of Harvard Law School:
The focus of her tenure was on improving student satisfaction. Efforts included constructing new facilities and reforming the first-year curriculum, as well as aesthetic changes and creature comforts, such as free morning coffee. She has been credited for employing a consensus-building leadership style, which surmounted the school's previous ideological discord.From that job description, it should be obvious that a person does not have to possess an outstanding legal mind to serve as a university dean. To the extent Kagan succeeded as a dean, it would almost inevitably had to have been to the detriment of her scholarship.
She also inherited a $400 million capital campaign, "Setting the Standard," in 2003. It ended in 2008 with a record breaking $476 million raised... Kagan made a number of prominent new hires...
Having been newly elevated to the position of Solicitor General, Elena Kagan's demonstratively inept choice of argument in defense of the government's position in a recent Supreme Court case suggests that she is not an especially gifted lawyer.
If you believe that the US Supreme Court ought to be comprised of the best legal minds in the country, it's worth considering that no prominent and successful university dean is likely to be counted as a member of that category.
UPDATE 1: Although I maintain here that a first-rate legal mind is unlikely aspire to be a dean, I'm not saying it could never happen -- just that it would be a far more rare event than the public has been led to believe. Moreover, if such a person existed, it would be ludicrous to maintain that one's "job performance as dean" ought to have a decisive bearing on the question of one's suitability for the highest court in the land. You would want to look at a person's other achievements. In the case of Elena Kagan, Guy-Uriel Charles has done exactly that, noting "a thin publication record."
UPDATE 2: In his essay, Guy-Uriel Charles asks a provocative question:
...how can it be the case that a long-time academic, someone who was a tenured member of two of the nation's top law schools, does not have a paper record? ... Kagan started teaching at the University of Chicago in 1991 and received tenure there in 1995. She was also a tenured professor and former Dean at the Harvard Law School.On the aggregate, schools like Harvard consist of faculty of the very highest caliber.
However, with respect to any particular hire, quality varies considerably. That's because a hiring decisions boils down to timing, a candidate's qualities, institutional priorities, and the idiosyncrasies of a particular hiring committee. Timing counts for a lot. Hence, plenty of second-rate people get hired, even at the best schools.
An unremarkable candidate's elevation to the Dean of Harvard Law School or other top-tier school is even easier to explain. Precisely because the faculty Harvard Law School consists of some of the country's brightest legal minds, relatively few faculty members are going to be particularly eager to serve as dean. Brilliant legal minds are not likely to find today's administrative work -- endless meetings, the new trend of pandering to students as if they were "customers", and of course, fund raising -- particularly appealing. Therefore, a person aspiring to be a dean of Harvard Law School is quite likely to be a second-rate scholar, a social climber, or both.
Of course, the "social currency" of a position such as dean has allowed academic institutions to function for centuries. If there was no prestige attached to such positions, schools would have trouble filling them. And universities might end up having to offer candidates more money to do the job.
Nevertheless, a debased currency of the academic world must not be allowed to have a bearing on who should fulfill one of the country's most powerful positions.
Bangkok grenade explosions kill three, foreigners among injured
UPDATED
Three people were been killed and an estimated 30-75 injured when three or -- by some accounts -- four grenades went off near the Silom district of Bangkok where an estimated 15,000 protesters and 10,000 police are gathered (Source: Nation).
A video of the aftermath of the event shows injured foreigners being treated and a badly injured fellow being carried away. As noted in this article, a number of tourists have been circulating among the protesters in hopes of photographing the protesting red shirts' so-called "bamboo fortress"
For background on the situation, see here.
UPDATE 1
It is reported that foreigners were killed in the explosion, and injured include an Australian and a Japanese man:
UPDATE 2
Bangkok Post is now reporting:
Three people were been killed and an estimated 30-75 injured when three or -- by some accounts -- four grenades went off near the Silom district of Bangkok where an estimated 15,000 protesters and 10,000 police are gathered (Source: Nation).
A video of the aftermath of the event shows injured foreigners being treated and a badly injured fellow being carried away. As noted in this article, a number of tourists have been circulating among the protesters in hopes of photographing the protesting red shirts' so-called "bamboo fortress"
For background on the situation, see here.
UPDATE 1
It is reported that foreigners were killed in the explosion, and injured include an Australian and a Japanese man:
Ambulances rushed away bloodied victims after the latest explosions, three of which happened at a station of the capital's elevated Skytrain, while one grenade exploded near the exclusive Dusit Thani hotel and another near a bank. (BTS Sala Daeng station).Red shirts are officially denying responsibility for the attack. Tonight an area of central Bangkok was, in fact, a war zone.
UPDATE 2
Bangkok Post is now reporting:
The explosions took place shortly after Arisman Pongruengrong, a UDD leader, told red shirt supporters gathered at Ratchaprasong intersection that a group of ''men in black'' would be coming to help the UDD.The article includes an interesting claim the red shirts are making about an incident that happened yesterday night:
Mr Suthep appeared on TV last night blaming ''terrorists'' for the attacks and urging people in Silom to move back from Sala Daeng intersection for their own safety.
He said the grenades had been launched from Lumpini Park, an area occupied by the red shirts...
The grenade blasts took place a day after ''multi-coloured'' people on Silom threw bottles at the red shirts on Wednesday night in anger at the UDD rally. [JOTMAN: see therelive.com for eyewitness reports on the incident yesterday].UPDATE 3: Bangkok Pundit, who is live-blogging the event, noticed something:
But UDD co-leader Jatuporn Prompan accused the Silom group who attacked the red shirts on Wednesday night of being soldiers and People's Alliance for Democracy yellow shirts in disguise.
''Those who threw bottles and hit us with slingshot were not businessmen and Silom office workers, but soldiers who disguised themselves as anti-red shirt civilians,'' Mr Jatuporn said.
BP: The message of what Suthep said was clear, the reds were behind it. On the direction that the M79 grenades were fired from, oddly the anti-Thaskin ASTV Mangaer quotes a witness as stating that the M79 was fired from the 5th floor of Chulalongkorn Hospital.In other words, if the grenades were launched from the red-controlled triangle of green in the photo, the reds would most likely have been responsible for the attack. But if it came from the hospital to the left of the park, any group able to gain access to the hospital could have done it.
NOTE: If you want to know where everything is, look at this image [Jotman: I posted it right]. Where the caption is where the BTS station is, the reds lettering is where the reds are, and that white cross is where Chulalongkorn Hospital is.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Fears of civil war, situation in Bangkok tense
Eyewitnesses describe how a tense standoff in Bangkok Wednesday night led to a violent clash between two groups of protesters. Assembled in the vicinity of the business district of the Thai capital are some 60,000 troops, perhaps 10,000 red shirt protesters, and thousands of "no-color" or yellow protesters (marching in opposition to the reds).
Shawn Crispin of the Asia Times (h/t JF) points to how the crackdown of April 10 may provide evidence of murderous disunity within the ranks of the Thai military. Although any attempt to purge the military of the disloyal officers could spark a civil war, some observers believe this may happen irregardless of the risk.
Shawn Crispin of the Asia Times (h/t JF) points to how the crackdown of April 10 may provide evidence of murderous disunity within the ranks of the Thai military. Although any attempt to purge the military of the disloyal officers could spark a civil war, some observers believe this may happen irregardless of the risk.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
US soldiers connected to WikiLeaks video event apologize
I recently blogged about the release of the WikiLeaks video and CNN's propaganda-like coverage of it.
Two soldiers active in the company shown in the video have since written an open letter "to all of those who were injured or lost loved ones during the July 2007 Baghdad shootings depicted in the “Collateral Murder” Wikileaks video":
I suspect US Def. Sec. Robert Gates's response to the video (he called it "not helpful" and something that "should not have lasting consequences") may have ultimately prompted the two former soldiers to write this letter.
Two soldiers active in the company shown in the video have since written an open letter "to all of those who were injured or lost loved ones during the July 2007 Baghdad shootings depicted in the “Collateral Murder” Wikileaks video":
...We are both soldiers who occupied your neighborhood for 14 months. Ethan McCord pulled your daughter and son from the van, and when doing so, saw the faces of his own children back home. Josh Stieber was in the same company but was not there that day, though he contributed to the your pain, and the pain of your community on many other occasions....According to a press release accompanying the letter, "Ethan applied for mental health support following this incident and was denied by his commanding officer."
We have been speaking to whoever will listen, telling them that what was shown in the Wikileaks video only begins to depict the suffering we have created. From our own experiences, and the experiences of other veterans we have talked to, we know that the acts depicted in this video are everyday occurrences of this war: this is the nature of how U.S.-led wars are carried out in this region.
We acknowledge our part in the deaths and injuries of your loved ones as we tell Americans what we were trained to do and what we carried out in the name of "god and country". The soldier in the video said that your husband shouldn't have brought your children to battle, but we are acknowledging our responsibility for bringing the battle to your neighborhood, and to your family. We did unto you what we would not want done to us....
Our government may ignore you, concerned more with its public image. It has also ignored many veterans who have returned physically injured or mentally troubled by what they saw and did in your country. But the time is long overdue that we say that the value of our nation's leaders no longer represent us. Our secretary of defense may say the U.S. won't lose its reputation over this, but we stand and say that our reputation's importance pales in comparison to our common humanity....
Solemnly and Sincerely,
Josh Stieber, former specialist, U.S. Army
Ethan McCord, former specialist, U.S. Army
I suspect US Def. Sec. Robert Gates's response to the video (he called it "not helpful" and something that "should not have lasting consequences") may have ultimately prompted the two former soldiers to write this letter.
Iceland volcano pours out more ash Monday as airlines pressure regulators to open Europe's skies
According to CNN, "The eruption of an Icelandic volcano, which had slowed in recent days, strengthened Monday, spewing a new cloud of ash that officials said was heading toward the United Kingdom, possibly posing a renewed threat to air travel."
The photo at right was taken early Monday afternoon by ESA’s Envisat satellite. It shows a heavy plume of ash from the Eyjafjallajoekull Volcano. The new plume is 400km long.
Meanwhile European airlines are touting the results of "test flights" that apparently show no damage to engines. On Lufthansa's recent test flight the pilot scrupulously avoided any area known to have heavy concentrations of ash. Such tests prove nothing.
The truth is that it's hard -- if not impossible -- to know where the hazardous ash will be encountered in high concentration, as one aviation expert explains:
The photo at right was taken early Monday afternoon by ESA’s Envisat satellite. It shows a heavy plume of ash from the Eyjafjallajoekull Volcano. The new plume is 400km long.
Meanwhile European airlines are touting the results of "test flights" that apparently show no damage to engines. On Lufthansa's recent test flight the pilot scrupulously avoided any area known to have heavy concentrations of ash. Such tests prove nothing.
The truth is that it's hard -- if not impossible -- to know where the hazardous ash will be encountered in high concentration, as one aviation expert explains:
"While it remains possible to find clear air high above us, this doesn't necessarily mean there are no pockets of high concentrations of ash at the various flight levels," Mr Yates said. "I would therefore suggest it's better to err on the side of caution."An incident involving the flight of a NASA DC-8 in 2002 revealed that 1) ash clouds themselves can be impossible to detect and 2) that severe damage to aircraft engines may not be readily apparent:
A study of the incident by researchers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory published in 2002 notes that satellites failed to pick up evidence of ash at the point where the DC-8 encountered it; instead it indicated cirrus clouds...The fact that airlines may have successfully pressured regulators to partially open Europe's skies Tuesday, is no guarantee that it's safe to fly.
Once the crew landed, a cursory inspection of the engines and the plane's exterior showed no evidence of an encounter with volcanic ash. Technicians at the site didn't have sophisticated inspection gear at their disposal, so the plane was pronounced fit.... [readings from in-flight instruments] did not reveal a problem, yet hot section parts may have begun to fail [through blade erosion] if flown another 100 hours,"...
Monday, April 19, 2010
Bangkok update
Follow-up on last Saturday's violent crackdown in Bangkok::
- Aftermath of April 10 violent street battle in Bangkok- accounts of eyewitnesses and live-bloggers (post has been updated throughout the week)
- April 10 violent clashes in Bangkok between army and protesters - accounts of eyewitnesses
- Soldier's account of April 10 battle
- Thai PM Abhisit puts Gen. Anupong in charge of tense situation in Bangkok
- Speculation about serious army split
- Economist's account of violence in Bangkok last Saturday
- Will there be another crackdown against the red shirts in Bangkok?
- Video of foreigner getting shot during battle on Bangkok's Khao San Road
- Lost and found in Bangkok: anti-aircraft weapons
- Will Thailand go to war with Cambodia?
Saturday, April 17, 2010
New crackdown on protesters by Thai army would be risky
Another military crackdown on Bangkok protesters is probably imminent. Yet, whatever the government's intentions, successful removal of protesting red shirts by force is by no means assured.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Why Thai army raid on Bangkok protesters failed miserably
UPDATED
Observing the Thai military's hapless and bloody effort to disperse protesters on Saturday in Bangkok I asked, "Did the army expect no resistance? What was the plan, the strategy?" Bangkok Pundit translated a possible explanation from an army source (BP's translation included the original Thai script):
There were reports of snipers on top of buildings from some eyewitnesses. On the above map you can see just how near the tourist-trodden Khao San tourist district is to Satri Wittaya school where the Thai military situated its base of operations and -- according to Seh Daeng -- snipers. Ultimately, it was not the misfortune of any "M79 grenade" attack, but poor planning on the part of Thai authorities left thousands of foreign tourists in the line of fire on Saturday. (Here is a video taken by a foreigner in the Khao San area as he was shot; this post gives you some idea of the extent to which foreign tourists were terrorized by the crackdown).
To think that Thailand's government showed so little concern for the safety of foreign tourists, for the viability of such an important industry!
Perhaps this should come as no surprise. The present Thai cabinet includes a foreign minister who personally participated in protests that shut-down Bangkok's Suvarnabuhmi International Airport. Of course, that action stranded thousands of foreign tourists in November 2008, costing the Thai economy an estimated US $8 billion.
UPDATE: A New Mandala blog post by Nick Nostitz includes photos of the Satri Wittaya school that attest to the presence of snipers on the building.
On the satellite image, you can see the proximity of the school building to democracy monument and the Khao San tourist area (top circle). Jan, a commenter on the Australian academic blog points to further evidence that snipers were present at Satri Wittaya school. He writes, "you can see the sniper location very clear on this video":
Jan comments:
UPDATE 2: The last 5 seconds of this exclusive France 24 video report proves that Thai soldiers were not merely firing live rounds "into the air" as the Thai government had claimed. The France 24 correspondent's account parallels another element of Seh Daeng's comment.
UPDATE 3: Nick Nostitz, at the blog: "I can clearly state that at the Satri Witaya School was a sniper, because i was at the receiving end of the maybe last round fired by this sniper – the fortunately only bullet I came close to that day."
Observing the Thai military's hapless and bloody effort to disperse protesters on Saturday in Bangkok I asked, "Did the army expect no resistance? What was the plan, the strategy?" Bangkok Pundit translated a possible explanation from an army source (BP's translation included the original Thai script):
Not one for quoting Seh Daeng, but he referred to the military being leaderless at a point - will include the full quote of what he said given the controversy. Matichon reports him as saying the mistake of the Army C-in-C was to use snipers on the building at Satri Wittaya school and this caused many people to die ... because the result of using snipers to kill the people first ... caused one group of persons whose identity is unknown or the Ronin fighters to respond ... by using a M79 grenade which then hit the military tent next to Satri Wittaya school which the military used as the command centre ... and this caused a serious injury to Maj General Valit the Commander of the forces .. and many other senior military officials .. so there was no commander to issue orders ...I recently blogged about Seh Daeng -- the pen name or alias for Maj Gen Khattiya Sawasdipol -- here and here.
There were reports of snipers on top of buildings from some eyewitnesses. On the above map you can see just how near the tourist-trodden Khao San tourist district is to Satri Wittaya school where the Thai military situated its base of operations and -- according to Seh Daeng -- snipers. Ultimately, it was not the misfortune of any "M79 grenade" attack, but poor planning on the part of Thai authorities left thousands of foreign tourists in the line of fire on Saturday. (Here is a video taken by a foreigner in the Khao San area as he was shot; this post gives you some idea of the extent to which foreign tourists were terrorized by the crackdown).
To think that Thailand's government showed so little concern for the safety of foreign tourists, for the viability of such an important industry!
Perhaps this should come as no surprise. The present Thai cabinet includes a foreign minister who personally participated in protests that shut-down Bangkok's Suvarnabuhmi International Airport. Of course, that action stranded thousands of foreign tourists in November 2008, costing the Thai economy an estimated US $8 billion.
UPDATE: A New Mandala blog post by Nick Nostitz includes photos of the Satri Wittaya school that attest to the presence of snipers on the building.
On the satellite image, you can see the proximity of the school building to democracy monument and the Khao San tourist area (top circle). Jan, a commenter on the Australian academic blog points to further evidence that snipers were present at Satri Wittaya school. He writes, "you can see the sniper location very clear on this video":
Jan comments:
Left Building :The above video taken by blogger Tony Joh seems to confirm Seh Daeng's claim about the presence of snipers in Satri Wittaya school. But who were the snipers? I find it hard to imagine that the Thai military, which apparently had a tent adjacent to the school, would have allowed non-military personnel to occupy any building above their command post. Therefore, I think it not unreasonable to assume that any snipers in the school buildings would have had to have been cooperating with the Thai military. Some key claims pertaining to Seh Daeng's account appear to be correct.
- 3.00 Sniper #1 (3rd room left, under the rooftop)
- 3.03 Sniper #2 (2nd room left, rooftop)
- 3.36 Sniper #3 (1st room left, rooftop)
- 3.37 Sniper #2 fires again
Notice the sound of the impacts that coincides with the shots on the last 2.
UPDATE 2: The last 5 seconds of this exclusive France 24 video report proves that Thai soldiers were not merely firing live rounds "into the air" as the Thai government had claimed. The France 24 correspondent's account parallels another element of Seh Daeng's comment.
According to our team, the clash was triggered by the explosion of a grenade, the origin of which remains unknown.Are France 24 and Seh Daeng referring to the same grenade attack? Both reports refer to a grenade attack that resulted in things getting out of hand. Might the "colonel" reported to have been injured in the France 24 report, have been Maj General Valit?
“The explosion killed seven soldiers and wounded a colonel of the Thai security forces in his head”, says FRANCE 24’s Payen.
While the victims of the explosion were being taken to the nearest hospital, the army retaliated by firing into the crowd, plunging Bangkok into chaos.
UPDATE 3: Nick Nostitz, at the blog: "I can clearly state that at the Satri Witaya School was a sniper, because i was at the receiving end of the maybe last round fired by this sniper – the fortunately only bullet I came close to that day."
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Origin of the "Obama is a socialist" meme
An American blogger, Kelly of the VSJ, recently explored the origin of a persistent, widely accepted myth about Obama shared by many Americans on the right. Namely, the assertion that Obama is a "socialist".
Kelly went in search of an actual tipping point, a moment in American life when the 'opinion' that Obama was a socialist became an accepted 'fact' among right-wingers:
Kelly went in search of an actual tipping point, a moment in American life when the 'opinion' that Obama was a socialist became an accepted 'fact' among right-wingers:
... I found an interesting ‘beginning’. Yes, the seeds were already there.. one only had to follow the 2008 campaign trail to see it, but something about this struck me like an “AHA! Here is where it really started to become true!” Because I think that up until that point, even with those at the town-meetings believing the rhetoric, it was still mainly a rumor. Until this broadcast sealed the rumor as truth forever. I found it on a blog called JOTMAN.COM. On this, his site ‘Jotman’ has 3 videos shot the night of President Obama’s election win.
One video is actually from Fox News the following morning showing a crowd of people at the gates of the White House, the broadcaster comments that they are probably drunk, her opinion of course, and then she draws your attention to the flag someone in the crowd raises, it is the Russian Communist flag. The Broadcaster is of course curious and wants this watched because ‘what does it mean?”, is it a sign?, do we need to fear this newly elected President or something just as ridiculous.
Again, here's the Jotman post that Kelly refers to.The second video is reportedly shot from inside the White House that same night, it’s the same crowd cheering at the gates, the man in the video sees the cheering and the flag and he is scared. As he says these are people coming out for Obama and cheering the fact that this country is going to change.. he just can’t believe what he is seeing. There is pushing and shoving, look there is the communist flag again, and torches! they’re all over the place it’s so ominous … it’s chaos!
Until you watch the video from the street. The third video shows the crowd laughing,cheering,smiling and yes.. Chanting. For the land of the free….. and the home of the… Braaaaavvveeee!!! Not to mention USA!USA!USA!USA!USA! The horror!
Yes, there is the commie flag.. but instead of asking what the flag meant Fox News decided it meant communism was here and they must fight it every step of the way. Fox news knew that morning, like the mornings after every election there was bound to be some pretty pissed off people and they were going to stir up that emotion and bank it. That story was the perfect one to drop the ‘Hearst’ seed and watch it grow. It was visual proof and with just the right question put to, maybe another mention of it later until it’s finally reported on as a fact. There was no need for anyone to hear the crowd, the silent view of it, with the added speculation would serve quit nicely. Those watching Fox that segment wouldn’t hear the glee and love of their country coming from that crowd instead they would see a possibly drunken presence cheering the fact that communism has now come to America when she elected an Communist, Marxist, Socialist the night before. Before long Glen Beck would confirm their other fear...
Monday, April 12, 2010
Obama's "axis of evil" moment
Last week, ostensibly heralding a more restrained US nuclear weapons policy in advance of Monday's nuclear summit in Washington D.C, the Obama Administration added a qualification that was both unnecessary and in poor taste:
The Iranian reaction to the Obama Administration was predicatable:
"The US said on Tuesday it would use atomic weapons only in "extreme circumstances" and would not attack non-nuclear states, but singled out "outliers" Iran and North Korea as exceptions."Why single out any countries as potential targets of attack? This approach is not likely to prove conductive towards improving relations with the named countries. Bush proved so much with his idiotic "axis of evil" rhetoric. This kind of talk proved popular at home, but won America no discernible advantage abroad.
The Iranian reaction to the Obama Administration was predicatable:
"The U.S. president has implicitly threatened the Iranian nation with nuclear weapons. These remarks are very strange," Khamenei said on state television.The White House rhetoric is easily explained. Obama's predecessor proved that bravado dependably wins a president support from domestic constituencies programed to fear this or that foreign entity. The downside, of course, is that words can easily be misinterpreted in foreign capitals. Iranian hard-liners can exploit aggressive US rhetoric to their own advantage. Moreover, the world as a whole becomes cynical when -- time and again --American leaders make convenient or self-interested "exceptions" to principles they profess to uphold.
Bangkok protest crackdown: evidence contradicts Thai government
The Thai government appears to have mindlessly shot its way in a corner. Saturday's army crackdown against protesters failed to achieve any strategic objective. Despite much bloodshed, the army did not disperse the protesters. Having killed a number of red shirts indiscriminately, the Thai government now claims that live rounds were not used. In making such an assertion, the government denies an overwhelming preponderance of eyewitness documented evidence.
Prior to Saturday, Thai Prime Minister Abhisit must have been concerned about looking weak. Today, even from the perspective of his supporters, not only the prime minister but also the leadership of Thailand's military forces appear incompetent -- and no less weak. Did the army expect no resistance? What was the plan, the strategy? The fact that soldiers fired live rounds of ammunition at protesters in close proximity to thousands foreign tourists speaks to the staggering carelessness -- indeed, the irresponsibility -- of Thailand's present military and civilian leadership.
The cause of the red shirts has been consecrated in blood. The movement now has its martyrs. Red shirts can be expected to arm themselves better in preparation for any future street confrontation. Many more supporters of the rural opposition movement, privy to evidence of the heartless brutality shown by government forces towards visitors to the Thai capital from the countryside, sickened by Bangkok's denials, are bound to step out of the woodwork. Tensions within the Thai armed forces may lead to outright fractures.
If negotiations were to resume any time soon, the government would likely find itself at a greater disadvantage relative to its position on Friday.
Prior to Saturday, Thai Prime Minister Abhisit must have been concerned about looking weak. Today, even from the perspective of his supporters, not only the prime minister but also the leadership of Thailand's military forces appear incompetent -- and no less weak. Did the army expect no resistance? What was the plan, the strategy? The fact that soldiers fired live rounds of ammunition at protesters in close proximity to thousands foreign tourists speaks to the staggering carelessness -- indeed, the irresponsibility -- of Thailand's present military and civilian leadership.
The cause of the red shirts has been consecrated in blood. The movement now has its martyrs. Red shirts can be expected to arm themselves better in preparation for any future street confrontation. Many more supporters of the rural opposition movement, privy to evidence of the heartless brutality shown by government forces towards visitors to the Thai capital from the countryside, sickened by Bangkok's denials, are bound to step out of the woodwork. Tensions within the Thai armed forces may lead to outright fractures.
If negotiations were to resume any time soon, the government would likely find itself at a greater disadvantage relative to its position on Friday.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Tourists "ducking for cover" on Bangkok's Khao San Road
Journalist Andrew Marshall's twitter feed provides disturbing insights into Saturday's street battle near a tourist enclave of Bangkok. Concerning events within the backpacker area of Khao San Road, Marshall tweeted:
In addition, the Thai army leaders need to be held to account as to why soldiers were permitted to fight an armed battle in close proximity to thousands of tourists. The fact that tourists did not receive any official warnings that this was coming is inexcusable.
More here on the situation today in the Khao San Road area of Bangkok. More on the conflict throughout Bangkok here. Remarkable video by a blogger in the thick of the action here.
Barricades going up at Khao San. Reds preparing for soldiers' return. Several pools of blood on road.... Don't listen to bland Thai govt reassuarances. Khao San is a dangerous place. I've seen 2 tourists with injuries... Khao San lis shuttered up, red shirts everywhere.... It looks like a warzone... Pitched battles in streets around Khao San. Tourists ducking for cover. A red shirt with an AK47..... Scenes of chaos at Khao San. Tourists tell me they saw horrific inuries, an old man with an eye hanging out.It's well worth checking out Marshall's whole feed. One item in particular sticks out:
French photographer tells me she saw troops open fire on medics trying to evacuate wounded.This kind of allegation obviously calls for further investigation.
In addition, the Thai army leaders need to be held to account as to why soldiers were permitted to fight an armed battle in close proximity to thousands of tourists. The fact that tourists did not receive any official warnings that this was coming is inexcusable.
More here on the situation today in the Khao San Road area of Bangkok. More on the conflict throughout Bangkok here. Remarkable video by a blogger in the thick of the action here.
Military crackdown on protesters in Bangkok
BREAKING NEWS
I put up a new post on this blog about situation in tourist district.
For links to various live-bloggers, see this post.
01:00 Bangkok, 14:00 NYC
Al Jazeera television report: footage from this afternoon showed Red shirts managing to push protesters back. It showed gunfire as military retreats from red's base near UN building. Reporter says tonight the area around Democracy monument is peaceful. But this afternoon, Military had been waiting in an off street near democracy monument, and the reds were confronting them. Shots were fired, reds claim evidence of live ammunition.
There are reports that governor's headquarters in Chang Mai had been taken over by red shirts. Uneasy calm tonight. Red shirt leaders calling on PM to leave the country. Some soldiers may be siding with red shirts, persistent rumors of a military coup.
00:30 Bangkok,13:30 NY
A Thai Television station is reporting 21 killed in Bangkok as troops crackdown on protesters. Erawan medical center is reporting 11 killed and 676 injured.
Jotman comment: As tragic as the events of April 10 have been, we must hope that the Red Shirts do not seek retaliation, whether in Bangkok or elsewhere in the country.
00:10 Bangkok,13:10 NYC
Bangkok Pundit who has been live-blogging the protests today, provides "a summary of Thai PM Abhisit's press statement about 45 minutes ago":I am sorry to hear on the deaths of the people who died tonight. I have said from the beginning that as long as protests were within the law that we were happy to talk. However, when beyond the law, we have to uphold the law. There have been many instances of sabotage over the past few weeks. Then, what happened on Friday [the reds going to restore the satelite link for PTV] affected key institutions of the state which effected not only the government but also of the state as a whole. Therefore, because of this, we needed to take action to obtain the return of some protest areas.
From this afternoon, you will be able to see that the protesters had weapons too in particular the M79 which caused deaths. The real bullets used by the authorities was only used for shooting up in the air or in in self-defence. When we know of the deaths, the army withdrew. We will have an investigation what happened on how people died.23:27 Bangkok, 12:27 NYC
Reuters announced that one of its cameramen, Hiro Muramoto, was killed. The same report indicates,
At least 521 people, including 64 soldiers and police, were wounded in the fighting near the Phan Fah bridge and Rajchadamnoen Road in Bangkok's old quarter, a protest base near government buildings and the regional U.N. headquarters.
Four civilians and four soldiers were killed, Deputy Governor of Bangkok Malinee Sukavrejworakit said. She did not give details. Hundreds of protesters went to Klang Hospital near the last and most violent clash to seek details on casualties.
22:30 Bangkok, 11:30 NYC
From BKKapologist on twitter (via NM's read-live blog of the situation): “Just got back from Ploen Chit. Reds “chased out” riot cops, who appeared sympathetic. Lots of cops high-fiving and waving foot clappers.”21:30 Bangkok,10:30 NYC
The Nation reported Col Sansern Kaewkamnerd, the spokesman of the Emergency Operations Command, confirmed that Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban Saturday ordered the crackdowns on protesters....
Sansern said 234 companies of troops were deployed to carry out the operation to break up the demonstration. Sansern said the crackdown was necessary as protesters would not obey the emergency decree, which prohibited demonstrations.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Obama communications policy overlooks the bigger problem
This week Obama let it be known that he had actually drawn up a hit-list that includes an American citizen. In the media the anouncement was met with yawns. Many Obama supporters -- including many former Bush opponents -- are not terribly concerned about this development.
Later in the week, Americans learned that their president was acting like a true liberal on the political correctness front:
This initiative hints at a more profound communications crisis. It concerns an issue that the new guide will do absolutely nothing to address -- and just may exacerbate. The summary to this mark-up of a synopsis of the new Obama communications policy -- though tongue and cheek -- makes the case succinctly:
Later in the week, Americans learned that their president was acting like a true liberal on the political correctness front:
The document that the Obama administration is consulting for drafting the new strategy — “A Guide for Counter-Terrorism Communication” — urges US officials to “avoid labeling everything ‘Muslim.’ It reinforces the ‘US vs. Islam’ framework that Al Qaeda promotes.” It reminds US officials that “a large percentage of the world’s population subscribes to this religion” and “unintentionally alienating them is not a judicious move.”To some on the left, this will sound like the "change" they had been waiting for. Right-wingers will vent. Personally, I think updating any Bush era guidelines to reflect greater cultural sensitivity is basic common sense. But in the scheme of things, within the context of events these past two weeks -- for example, word that a US civil rights group could be prosecuted for investigating torture, "drill baby, drill!" as Obama policy, the war crime video cover-up -- it's important to put such an announcement in perspective. And call it what it is, politically speaking.
This initiative hints at a more profound communications crisis. It concerns an issue that the new guide will do absolutely nothing to address -- and just may exacerbate. The summary to this mark-up of a synopsis of the new Obama communications policy -- though tongue and cheek -- makes the case succinctly:
...the government will retain ample linguistic latitude to frighten Americans, it's just that officials will no longer be quite so culturally insensitive in their choice of words.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Kyrgyzstan revolution of 2010
BREAKING NEWS
JOTMAN.COM contributor Sanjuro, tracking Russian language media reports, alerts us that Kyrgyzstan appears to be undergoing a revolution. If successful, the event will be Kyrgystan's second revolution since 2005 (the "Tulip Revolution."). Sanjuro informs us:
The Russian language section of Ferghana says "it's the second day of the revolution, not fully successful - yet", but cautiously optimistic meaning it's pro-opposition.
As of yesterday and earlier today, law enforcement and opposition are clashing in the streets in the Bishkek, with the opposition laregly prevailing. The opposition firmly control the northern provinces, the south is in the swing mood - they used to be more pro-government. From Gazeta it seems that the President Bakiyev is either hiding or already fled the country. Just two weeks ago Bakiyev announced his intent to finally alter the Constitution to abolish elections etc. Ferghana doesn't know where he is.
Another Kazakhstan source, Silk Road Intelligencer, reports, "the opposition says it has taken power."Karl Horberg at UN Dispatch blogged today:
... the opposition is weak and fragmented. A coalition of opposition parties united behind Almazbek Atambayev in the 2009 presidential elections but only received 8% of the vote. Atambayev is nowhere to be seen during the recent unrest. Roza Otunbayeva, the leader of the Social Democratic Party and key member of the Tulip Revolution, has been the face of the protestors. Sadly, like the last time around Otunbayeva and company seem caught off guard and genuinely surprised at the ability of a popular uprising to unseat the government. In order to maintain any semblance of credibility the opposition will have to act quickly to stop looters....Kyrgyzstan has a youthful population. Out of the country's 5 million inhabitants, one third are under the age of 15. Two thirds of the people live in the countryside, where half the country's labor force devotes itself to agriculture. According to Reuters, a key source of foreign revenue was migrant workers in Russia, but since the Russian economic slowdown many have returned home. Kyrgyzstan's Kumtor Gold Mine, which opened in 1997, is based on one of the largest gold deposits in the world.
In addition to gold, Kyrgyzstan has one other dependable source of foreign currency: Kyrgyzstan hosts both a Russian and American military airbases (the US base came about as a result of the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan). Reuters notes:
"Kyrgyzstan's parliament voted in February 2009 to approve the closure of the U.S. base after securing pledges of $2 billion in aid and credit from Russia. Washington later agreed to pay $180 million to Kyrgyzstan to keep the base open."____
"U.S. General David Petraeus met leaders in Kyrgyzstan last month, a day after the United States said it would build an anti-terrorism center there. The visit by Petraeus was likely to irritate Moscow which has seen Kyrgyzstan as part of its sphere of influence. The presence of the two bases has come to symbolize Russia-U.S. rivalry in the region."
*Usually Ferghana.ru (fergana.ru) is the best source of Central Asian news, but this time they are a bit late with an English language update.
US won't prosecute those who torture, only those who investigate torture?
TPM:
The civil liberties organization has put together a stunning interactive chart "that diagrams the participation of high-level officials in the torture program based upon publicly available documents."
What can we do? We can "demand a full investigation of the Bush torture program" -- see here. Also, we can donate to the ACLU.
In a case that has all the ingredients to explode into a national controversy, Attorney General Eric Holder has appointed star prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate whether laws were broken after "paparazzi style" photographs of CIA officers were found in the cell of a Guantanamo inmate accused of financing the 9/11 attacks, Newsweek is reporting....By the sound of it, ACLU has been up to some truly heroic -- not to mention brilliant -- investigative work. ACLU is doing the kind of footwork that Attorney General Eric Holder's office is supposed to do, but won't do.
The head of the ACLU, Anthony Romero, acknowledged to Newsweek, that the group hired investigators to track down CIA officers it believes were involved in torture, citing the need to cross-examine "the perpetrators of torture." He added that, "To our knowledge, the 9/11 defendants were not told the identities of the CIA officers."
The civil liberties organization has put together a stunning interactive chart "that diagrams the participation of high-level officials in the torture program based upon publicly available documents."
What can we do? We can "demand a full investigation of the Bush torture program" -- see here. Also, we can donate to the ACLU.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Which man poses the greater danger?
NY Times:
I see three problems with Obama's approach here. First, intelligence isn't always what it's cracked up to be. Recall that another president took America to war on the basis of worthless CIA intelligence. The massacre captured in the WikiLeaks video was an outcome of soldiers acting on poor intelligence. Second, that's not quite how America's justice system works. You know, "innocent until proven guilty," trials, juries, that kind of stuff. Third, a decision about whether or not to take away the life of an American citizen is not part of a president's job description. On that point, we could check the Constitution, or seeking a right-wing interpretation, we could ask someone who worked for the Bush Administration:
The Obama administration has taken the extraordinary step of authorizing the targeted killing of an American citizen, the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them, intelligence and counterterrorism officials said Tuesday.The key word is "believed." Apparently, President Obama has looked at some intelligence and decided that Anwar al-Awlaki should be exterminated. In so doing, Obama casts himself in the role of judge, jury and executioner.
I see three problems with Obama's approach here. First, intelligence isn't always what it's cracked up to be. Recall that another president took America to war on the basis of worthless CIA intelligence. The massacre captured in the WikiLeaks video was an outcome of soldiers acting on poor intelligence. Second, that's not quite how America's justice system works. You know, "innocent until proven guilty," trials, juries, that kind of stuff. Third, a decision about whether or not to take away the life of an American citizen is not part of a president's job description. On that point, we could check the Constitution, or seeking a right-wing interpretation, we could ask someone who worked for the Bush Administration:
A former senior legal official in the administration of George W. Bush said he did not know of any American who was approved for targeted killing under the former president.It appears as if Obama is leading his country to a dark place in the woods. A place so dark Bush and Cheney dared not go there. I cannot help but wonder who poses the greater danger to the United States as we know it: one radical Muslim American cleric or a president who would order the execution of an American citizen without trial?
CNN invites Gen Mark Kimmitt to "explain" the WikiLeaks video
Yesterday, CNN downplayed the significance of the WikiLeaks video when Wolf Blitzer and Barbara Starr declined to play -- or even mention -- the most disturbing segments of the video. This tactic may be backfiring because hundreds of CNN viewers who know the report was skewed are leaving comments that scream: "Shame on CNN!" .
Today, perhaps aware this approach is not working, CNN pulled out the old heavy artillery. Enter Gen. Mark Kimmitt.
You can watch Mark Kimmitt "explain" the WikiLeak video on CNN. They don't show enough of the video and CNN patronizes viewers by putting a black box over the scene where the Apache helicopter massacres half a dozen Iraqis including two journalists. I have posted the actual WikiLeaks video on this blog.
Who is Gen Mark Kimmitt?
Gen Mark Kimmitt was Deputy Director for Operations/Chief Military Spokesman for Coalition Forces in Iraq. He is the son of the late Joseph Stanley Kimmitt, a former Col. in Army and a partner in "a Washington, DC, public relations, or lobbyist, firm." Five years ago it was observed that "as Gen. Mark Kimmitt promotes the war in Iraq, his father represents defense contractors such as Textron Defense Systems, Talley Defense Systems, and Boeing (maker of the Army's Apache attack helicopter)." One of Mark Kimmitt's brothers, Joseph, is a former soldier turned "US Senate Appropriations Committee" staffer turned Washington lobbyist. Mark's other brother, Robert, is a decorated military pilot. Robert "received total compensation of more than $3.2 million" in 2003 for serving as Chairman of the International Advisory Council of Time Warner, the parent company of CNN. Of course, CNN is where brother Mark appeared tonight. Concurrently, Robert served on the the National Security Advisory Panel of the CIA. From 2005-2009 Robert, a former managing-director at Lehman Bros., served as United States Deputy Secretary of the Treasury under President George W. Bush.
In a nutshell, the Kimmitts are upper-echelon members of Washington's so-called "revolving-door" society. The term refers to the movement of persons "between roles as legislators and regulators and the industries affected by the legislation and regulation" and lobbying companies.
Mark Kimmitt has a history of speaking to the media about various military scandals. In the past, what wisdom has Kimmitt shared with the American public? Jotman investigates.
What did Gen Mark Kimmitt say about Abu Ghraib?
In February 2004, the world learned of a confidential report by the International Committee of the Red Cross that said “military intelligence officers told [us] that in their estimate between 70 percent and 90 percent of the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake.” Nevertheless, Pentagon spokesperson Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt would claim, “If they were innocent, they wouldn’t be at Abu Ghraib.… The number that were released because they were innocent? That number… is zero. Persons are held at Abu Ghraib because they are determined to be security threats, imminent security threats here in [Iraq].” (New York Times, 5/30/2004)
According to the BBC Gen Mark Kimmitt said of Abu Ghraib, "Most of the people in Iraq recognize that was an isolated incident and our investigations continue to demonstrate that it is fairly isolated and not representative of the 135,000 soldiers who are doing the right thing under tough circumstances every day."
What did Gen Mark Kimmitt say about the Iraq wedding party bombing?
In the aftermath of allegations that an Iraq wedding party had been bombed in 2004, BBC reported that Mark Kimmitt "insisted that there was no evidence that US forces had attacked a wedding party during an operation near the Syrian border that left dozens dead." The BBC report continued,
What did Gen Mark Kimmitt say about Fallujah?
On March 31, 2004, four American private military contractors -- Blackwater employees -- were ambushed and killed in the city. Mark Kimmitt vowed to hunt down the people responsible. "It will be at a time and a place of our choosing. It will be methodical, it will be precise and it will be overwhelming."
"In response to the killing of the four US citizens, and intense political pressure, the US Marines commenced Operation Vigilant Resolve." Its execution was not flawless. The insurgents had sufficient warning of the pending attack to get out of town, but many Iraqi civilians apparently were not able to evacuate. It is claimed that up to 6,000 civilians were killed throughout the operation. US officials report that "more than half of Fallujah's 39,000 homes were damaged, and about 10,000 of those were destroyed."
George Monbiot of the Guardian, wrote, "... there is hard evidence that white phosphorus was deployed as a weapon against combatants in Falluja. As this column revealed last Tuesday, US infantry officers confessed that they had used it to flush out insurgents." An Italian film, Fallujah the hidden massacre documented "the use of weapons based on white phosphorus and other substances similar to napalm, such as Mark-77, by American forces."
Jotman's Comment
To discuss the video, I think CNN ought to have invited into its Atlanta studio an Iraqi journalist and a veteran Apache helicopter pilot or gunner who has flown in Baghdad -- not someone with Mark Kimmitt's background and track record.
CNN should not be turning to members of Washington's military-industrial-media complex to "explain" anything to the public. More than any video, the continued appearance of such individuals on CNN in the role of "expert" is what really needs explaining.
Today, perhaps aware this approach is not working, CNN pulled out the old heavy artillery. Enter Gen. Mark Kimmitt.
You can watch Mark Kimmitt "explain" the WikiLeak video on CNN. They don't show enough of the video and CNN patronizes viewers by putting a black box over the scene where the Apache helicopter massacres half a dozen Iraqis including two journalists. I have posted the actual WikiLeaks video on this blog.
Who is Gen Mark Kimmitt?
Gen Mark Kimmitt was Deputy Director for Operations/Chief Military Spokesman for Coalition Forces in Iraq. He is the son of the late Joseph Stanley Kimmitt, a former Col. in Army and a partner in "a Washington, DC, public relations, or lobbyist, firm." Five years ago it was observed that "as Gen. Mark Kimmitt promotes the war in Iraq, his father represents defense contractors such as Textron Defense Systems, Talley Defense Systems, and Boeing (maker of the Army's Apache attack helicopter)." One of Mark Kimmitt's brothers, Joseph, is a former soldier turned "US Senate Appropriations Committee" staffer turned Washington lobbyist. Mark's other brother, Robert, is a decorated military pilot. Robert "received total compensation of more than $3.2 million" in 2003 for serving as Chairman of the International Advisory Council of Time Warner, the parent company of CNN. Of course, CNN is where brother Mark appeared tonight. Concurrently, Robert served on the the National Security Advisory Panel of the CIA. From 2005-2009 Robert, a former managing-director at Lehman Bros., served as United States Deputy Secretary of the Treasury under President George W. Bush.
In a nutshell, the Kimmitts are upper-echelon members of Washington's so-called "revolving-door" society. The term refers to the movement of persons "between roles as legislators and regulators and the industries affected by the legislation and regulation" and lobbying companies.
Mark Kimmitt has a history of speaking to the media about various military scandals. In the past, what wisdom has Kimmitt shared with the American public? Jotman investigates.
What did Gen Mark Kimmitt say about Abu Ghraib?
In February 2004, the world learned of a confidential report by the International Committee of the Red Cross that said “military intelligence officers told [us] that in their estimate between 70 percent and 90 percent of the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake.” Nevertheless, Pentagon spokesperson Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt would claim, “If they were innocent, they wouldn’t be at Abu Ghraib.… The number that were released because they were innocent? That number… is zero. Persons are held at Abu Ghraib because they are determined to be security threats, imminent security threats here in [Iraq].” (New York Times, 5/30/2004)
According to the BBC Gen Mark Kimmitt said of Abu Ghraib, "Most of the people in Iraq recognize that was an isolated incident and our investigations continue to demonstrate that it is fairly isolated and not representative of the 135,000 soldiers who are doing the right thing under tough circumstances every day."
What did Gen Mark Kimmitt say about the Iraq wedding party bombing?
In the aftermath of allegations that an Iraq wedding party had been bombed in 2004, BBC reported that Mark Kimmitt "insisted that there was no evidence that US forces had attacked a wedding party during an operation near the Syrian border that left dozens dead." The BBC report continued,
Gen Kimmitt added that following the release of a video apparently showing the bodies of musicians who had earlier been entertaining a group pf people at the site, an "open and honest" investigation had been launched by the US military.The photo above shows men with a baby at the wedding party. It's a capture from the videotape. On Monday 24 May AP reported that "videotape obtained Sunday by Associated Press Television News captures a wedding party that survivors say was later attacked by U.S. planes early Wednesday, killing up to 45 people. The dead included the cameraman, Yasser Shawkat Abdullah, hired to record the festivities, which ended Tuesday night before the planes struck." Photo hat-tip ESWN which has compiled dozens of news reports and photos relating to the wedding party massacre.
"There may have been a celebration going on... (but) to suggest that somehow we had a wedding party going on there is not borne out by the facts on the ground."
What did Gen Mark Kimmitt say about Fallujah?
On March 31, 2004, four American private military contractors -- Blackwater employees -- were ambushed and killed in the city. Mark Kimmitt vowed to hunt down the people responsible. "It will be at a time and a place of our choosing. It will be methodical, it will be precise and it will be overwhelming."
"In response to the killing of the four US citizens, and intense political pressure, the US Marines commenced Operation Vigilant Resolve." Its execution was not flawless. The insurgents had sufficient warning of the pending attack to get out of town, but many Iraqi civilians apparently were not able to evacuate. It is claimed that up to 6,000 civilians were killed throughout the operation. US officials report that "more than half of Fallujah's 39,000 homes were damaged, and about 10,000 of those were destroyed."
George Monbiot of the Guardian, wrote, "... there is hard evidence that white phosphorus was deployed as a weapon against combatants in Falluja. As this column revealed last Tuesday, US infantry officers confessed that they had used it to flush out insurgents." An Italian film, Fallujah the hidden massacre documented "the use of weapons based on white phosphorus and other substances similar to napalm, such as Mark-77, by American forces."
Jotman's Comment
To discuss the video, I think CNN ought to have invited into its Atlanta studio an Iraqi journalist and a veteran Apache helicopter pilot or gunner who has flown in Baghdad -- not someone with Mark Kimmitt's background and track record.
CNN should not be turning to members of Washington's military-industrial-media complex to "explain" anything to the public. More than any video, the continued appearance of such individuals on CNN in the role of "expert" is what really needs explaining.
Outrage over CNN report on WikiLeaks video by Wolf Blitzer
See update (bellow)
CNN viewers around the world are shouting three words in unison: "Shame on CNN!" Yesterday, tracking the response of the media to the release of the WikiLeaks video, I blogged:
Let no one get the idea Jotman has anything in particular against CNN. This blog strongly defended CNN on a past occasion when Jotman felt CNN was being attacked unfairly.
I have posted the WikiLeaks video of the July 2007 Baghdad massacre here.
____
*The Fox News Award is a feature at Jotman.com that began early 2008. It goes to a media organization that has gone the extra mile during the course of the week to make the public more stupid. (Otherwise corrupting the ethic of creativity and global citizenship.) Some past winners.
___
IMPORTANT UPDATE: Concerning the WikiLeaks video, on Tuesday CNN turned to different tactics -- just as troubling as what I report here.
CNN viewers around the world are shouting three words in unison: "Shame on CNN!" Yesterday, tracking the response of the media to the release of the WikiLeaks video, I blogged:
CNN's Wolf Blitzer interviewed Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr about the video. The network presented a short clip from the video. Out of "respect for the families of the journalists killed" CNN does not show the Apache helicopter actually firing on the group of men. What is really bizarre is that this CNN report makes no mention at all of the unconscionable attack on the rescue van which killed the rescuers and seriously injured two children.I have been monitoring viewer comments left on the CNN webpage where a video of the Situation Room interview is posted. Some 3,103 CNN viewers have commented. The most "liked" comment was this one:
jnberger What about the two kids that were in this van?!? Nice reporting CNN! And way to make it seem like this video was just leaked because they had it! The fact is that the military originally lied about what happened in 2007. Main stream media is the worst place for information. You're journalists for gods sake! - 178 agreeHere is a selection of other most "liked" comments on CNN. Note that many readers agree with the following opinions:
olololwtf Kind of an easy-going attitude from CNN regarding this video. Not anything about the gunner seeing the two children in the window of the van and eagerly requesting permission to fire upon the unarmed civilians that tried to safe someone's life and got murdered in the process. - 105 agreeIn recognition of CNN for its reporting on the WikiLeaks video, JOTMAN.COM has decided to award CNN its Fox News Award.* This makes CNN the recipient of the award for an unprecedented second week in a row.
PelleFisk You gotta be kidding?! You (CNN) can seriously make this report after watching them gun down unarmed people trying to help wounded people? - 70 agree
Stevems: CNN's selective editting of the video downplays the brutality of the event and the war crime of firing on wounded personnel. - 46 agree
ANO: How nice of CNN to omit the most brutal parts when our blessed army finds an innocent girl wounded and just say "It's their fault for bringing their kids". I guess everyone in the world but us knows how brutal we are thanks to CNN and our media, check out the entire video at Al Jazeera English. -
Shephard: video was highly edited and a shameful thing to do CNN. The truth needs to be told, you need to do your job as journalists. Remember your fellow journalists were killed. You did not show the wounded people getting killed. You did not show how the soldier laughed of a child getting killed. - 23 agree
3141592654 Shame on CNN for only reporting part of the story. Please watch the full video. I can buy the fact that the copter gun crew thought they saw a couple people carrying weapons. I've not been in combat so I can maybe even understand the decision to kill everyone in the group because a few people were seen carrying weapons. What I can't understand, however, is the fact that they later decided to shoot everyone in a van who drove up to help an injured man.... - 23 agree
svennebanan: CNN why not show the whole clip, show it all like the do in Europe and the rest of the world, show the american public what soldiers they have representing them, or is it a little to much freedom for the public over there to handle? Show the whole sickening clip! Especially don't miss the part when they kill the children and laugh at it. Essence of the US army, in a nutshell. - 21 agree
magwheel: Why does CNN leave out the stuff that shows the Apache crews acted like trigger-happy assholes? For the sake of the victims' families? Only if you consider the cold-blooded killers to be the "victims." Their families, all of America, in fact, should be ashamed of what happened that day. - 17 agree
djschusta: The crazy thing is that Faux news is reporting on this more openly and fairly than CNN. Just go over there and check it out. Shame on you CNN. - 10 agree
Let no one get the idea Jotman has anything in particular against CNN. This blog strongly defended CNN on a past occasion when Jotman felt CNN was being attacked unfairly.
I have posted the WikiLeaks video of the July 2007 Baghdad massacre here.
____
*The Fox News Award is a feature at Jotman.com that began early 2008. It goes to a media organization that has gone the extra mile during the course of the week to make the public more stupid. (Otherwise corrupting the ethic of creativity and global citizenship.) Some past winners.
___
IMPORTANT UPDATE: Concerning the WikiLeaks video, on Tuesday CNN turned to different tactics -- just as troubling as what I report here.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
WikiLeaks video shows killing of journalists in Baghdad by US forces
UPDATES (9)
Spokesmen for the US military would appear to have brazenly lied to the press about what actually happened in Baghdad on July 12, 2007.
WikiLeaks claims that a classified US military video depicts the indiscriminate killing of civilians in Baghdad by American military personnel. WikiLeaks obtained and decoded the suppressed Pentagon video and posted it just a few hours ago:
WikiLeaks summarizes the the video:
Prior to the release of this video, WikiLeaks was subjected to surveillance by US intelligence services. In addition, a classified Pentagon report urged that WikiLeaks be destroyed. Background here.
UPDATE I: Presently the view count for the video shows "359" views. Based on the volume of comments, there is no possibility that YouTube is is accurately displaying the number of views this video has been getting. Videos with low view counts do not get highlighted on YouTube's home page.
UPDATE II: It would appear that the only major international news organizations reporting on the video so far are the BBC, Guardian, Al Jazeera, and Russia Today. Interesting that apart from a few blogs, the mainstream American news media apparently does not consider the release of the video newsworthy.
Is the video fake? Perhaps the US media won't report on account of overwhelming doubts concerning the authenticity of the video (Doubts the venerable BBC does not share). Al Jazeera reports:
If the video implicated the Russian or Chinese military, I strongly suspect citizens of these countries would likewise be dependent on blogs for information about the appearance of such a video. Sadly, even under the Obama Administration, the mainstream American media continues to behave as if it takes cues as to what constitutes "news" from the government.
UPDATE III: AP is now reporting that an unnamed "senior Pentagon source" has confirmed the video is genuine.
The phrase used to introduce the heart of the story, "a ... video circulating the internet," attests to my observation that the video had not previously been deemed worthy of serious news coverage by the US press. But now that an unnamed senior Pentagon figure has verified the video, AP has chosen to inform Americans about its existence. Now the video is newsworthy. Before, it was just another video "circulating the Internet." Could the lesson here be that until a high-level Pentagon official has verified it, an independently verified video documenting the military's activities is not considered news?
UPDATE IV: It would appear so. Now that a senior Pentagon source has validated the video, in the last 50 minutes -- many hours after major foreign news services ran this story -- Washington Post, Fox News, and the rest of theofficial state mainstream news media are reporting on the video.
UPDATE V: CNN's Wolf Blitzer interviewed Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr about the video. The network presented a short clip from the video. Out of "respect for the families of the journalists killed" CNN does not show the Apache helicopter actually firing on the group of men. What is really bizarre is that this CNN report makes no mention at all of the unconscionable attack on the rescue van which killed the rescuers and seriously injured two children.
UPDATE VI: WikiLeak correspondents visited Baghdad and interviewed the children injured during the attack. More pics from their investigation here.
Update VII: Journalist James Fallows shares a thought well worth quoting:
Spokesmen for the US military would appear to have brazenly lied to the press about what actually happened in Baghdad on July 12, 2007.
WikiLeaks claims that a classified US military video depicts the indiscriminate killing of civilians in Baghdad by American military personnel. WikiLeaks obtained and decoded the suppressed Pentagon video and posted it just a few hours ago:
WikiLeaks summarizes the the video:
Wikileaks has obtained and decrypted this previously unreleased video footage from a US Apache helicopter in 2007. It shows Reuters journalist Namir Noor-Eldeen, driver Saeed Chmagh, and several others as the Apache shoots and kills them in a public square in Eastern Baghdad. They are apparently assumed to be insurgents. After the initial shooting, an unarmed group of adults and children in a minivan arrives on the scene and attempts to transport the wounded. They are fired upon as well. The official statement on this incident initially listed all adults as insurgents and claimed the US military did not know how the deaths ocurred. Wikileaks released this video with transcripts and a package of supporting documents on April 5th 2010 on collateralmurder.comA full uncut version of the video intended for research purposes is available here.
Prior to the release of this video, WikiLeaks was subjected to surveillance by US intelligence services. In addition, a classified Pentagon report urged that WikiLeaks be destroyed. Background here.
UPDATE I: Presently the view count for the video shows "359" views. Based on the volume of comments, there is no possibility that YouTube is is accurately displaying the number of views this video has been getting. Videos with low view counts do not get highlighted on YouTube's home page.
UPDATE II: It would appear that the only major international news organizations reporting on the video so far are the BBC, Guardian, Al Jazeera, and Russia Today. Interesting that apart from a few blogs, the mainstream American news media apparently does not consider the release of the video newsworthy.
Is the video fake? Perhaps the US media won't report on account of overwhelming doubts concerning the authenticity of the video (Doubts the venerable BBC does not share). Al Jazeera reports:
But Julian Assange, the editor of WikiLeaks.org, said there is strong evidence to suggest that the video is genuine.I do not believe that any lingering doubts about the video's authenticity could fully explain the US media's neglect of this breaking news story.
"There was a Washington Post reporter who was with that US military unit on the ground on that day," Assange told Al Jazeera, referring to David Finkel, a journalist who was embedded with the US military in July 2007.
"He wrote a chapter in a book, which was published last year, called The Good Soldiers, which correlates directly to the material in that video.
"Also, Reuters conducted a number of investigations and interviewed two ground witnesses at the time.
"That story wasn't really taken seriously, [with] nothing to back up the witnesses, but now we have the video that shows that those witnesses were correct."
If the video implicated the Russian or Chinese military, I strongly suspect citizens of these countries would likewise be dependent on blogs for information about the appearance of such a video. Sadly, even under the Obama Administration, the mainstream American media continues to behave as if it takes cues as to what constitutes "news" from the government.
UPDATE III: AP is now reporting that an unnamed "senior Pentagon source" has confirmed the video is genuine.
AP source confirms video on Internet of Baghdad firefight that killed Reuters photographer"Firefight" -- hardly the word to describe it.
By ANNE FLAHERTY , Associated PressLast update: April 5, 2010 - 3:32 PM
WASHINGTON - A senior U.S. military official has confirmed as authentic a gritty war video circulating on the Internet that shows U.S. forces firing repeatedly on a group of men — some of whom were unarmed — as they walk down a Baghdad street.
The official confirmed that the video posted Monday at Wikileaks.org was of a July 12, 2007, firefight in the New Baghdad District of eastern Baghdad. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the video and a Pentagon investigation have never been released.
The phrase used to introduce the heart of the story, "a ... video circulating the internet," attests to my observation that the video had not previously been deemed worthy of serious news coverage by the US press. But now that an unnamed senior Pentagon figure has verified the video, AP has chosen to inform Americans about its existence. Now the video is newsworthy. Before, it was just another video "circulating the Internet." Could the lesson here be that until a high-level Pentagon official has verified it, an independently verified video documenting the military's activities is not considered news?
UPDATE IV: It would appear so. Now that a senior Pentagon source has validated the video, in the last 50 minutes -- many hours after major foreign news services ran this story -- Washington Post, Fox News, and the rest of the
UPDATE V: CNN's Wolf Blitzer interviewed Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr about the video. The network presented a short clip from the video. Out of "respect for the families of the journalists killed" CNN does not show the Apache helicopter actually firing on the group of men. What is really bizarre is that this CNN report makes no mention at all of the unconscionable attack on the rescue van which killed the rescuers and seriously injured two children.
UPDATE VI: WikiLeak correspondents visited Baghdad and interviewed the children injured during the attack. More pics from their investigation here.
Update VII: Journalist James Fallows shares a thought well worth quoting:
"I can't pretend to know the full truth or circumstances of this. But at face value it is the most damaging documentation of abuse since the Abu Ghraib prison-torture photos. As you watch, imagine the reaction in the US if the people on the ground had been Americans and the people on the machine guns had been Iraqi, Russian, Chinese, or any other nationality. As with Abu Ghraib, and again assuming this is what it seems to be, the temptation will be to blame the operations-level people who were, in this case, chuckling as they mowed people down. That's not where the real responsibility lies."UPDATE VIII (next day): Fallows comment brought to mind a comment I came across on Wired:
In summary, this was the inevitable outcome of decisions made at a very high level concerning the ROEs [Rules of Engagement], the attitudes purposefully inculcated in front line troops, and the performance expectations demanded of them by line officers. What is unfortunate, is that it takes WikiLeaks to make this apparent where we should be able to expect our military of policing itself and taking whatever steps are necessary to reduce friendly fire casualties without degrading force protection for our troops on the ground.Glenn Greenwald expounds on this idea, with reference to Pentagon documents released yesterday:
.... the Pentagon yesterday -- once the video was released -- suddenly embraced the wisdom of transparency by posting online the reports of the so-called "investigations" it undertook into this incident (as a result of pressure from Reuters). Those formal investigations not only found that every action taken by those soldiers was completely justified -- including the firing on the unarmed civilian rescuers -- but also found that there's no need for any remedial steps to be taken to prevent future re-occurence. What we see on that video is what the U.S. does on a constant and regular basis in these countries, and it's what we've been doing for years. It's obviously consistent with our policies and practices for how we fight in these countries, which is exactly what those investigative reports concluded.UPDATE IX: Today Fallows makes a further -- and important -- clarification:
There will be lot of those "real questions" to consider, from rules of engagement to the apparent cover up of the footage. But the threshold point I meant to start with is this: The very high likelihood of such "tragedies" occurring is a very strong reason not to get into wars of this sort.By "of this sort" I mean: twilight-zone urban warfare, not to mention "discretionary" or "preventive" wars, and situations in which a heavily armed-and-amored occupying force of foreigners tries uneasily to mix with a population overwhelmingly of a different race and religion and language....
We could not know that this episode would occur. But we could be sure that something like it would. It's not even a matter of "To will the end is to will the means." Rather the point is: You enter these circumstances, sooner or later you get these results.
A failure of tragic imagination is what I most criticized in war supporters in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, and it was much of the reason I opposed the war. We can't do anything about that decision now. But this new footage is worth bearing in mind as we face the next decision -- about bombing Iran, let's say; or extending the anti-Taliban fight into Pakistan; or how long to remain in Afghanistan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)