THIS JUST IN! THIS IS INTELLIGENCE?

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O HAS A STAFF THAT'S ABOUT AS SMART AS HE IS -- IN OTHER WORDS, NOT AT ALL.

JAMES CLAPPER, THE NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF SO-CALLED INTELLIGENCE, WAS INTERVIEWED BY ABC'S DIANE SAWYER ON MONDAY.

THE INTERVIEW TOOK PLACE AFTER 12 WERE ARRESTED IN LONDON ACCUSED OF A TERRORIST PLOT:

12 men arrested over suspected terrorism plot in United Kingdom

ABC2 News - ‎Dec 20, 2010‎

The Associated Press LONDON - British authorities arrested 12 men on Monday, accusing them of plotting a terror attack in the United Kingdom. ...

Police Break-up Terror Plot In The United Kingdom News Channel

Police In UK Arrest 12 In Probe Of Terror

Wall Street Journal - ‎21 hours ago‎

By CASSELL BRYAN-LOW LONDON—UK police arrested 12 men in a large-scale counterterrorism operation described as "absolutely necessary" for public safety, ...

UK News Terror police search homes as 12 men held Scotsman

UK police arrests 12 men over suspected terrorism plot Daily Times

12 men arrested over suspected UK terrorism plot The Associated Press

Reuters - The Voice of Russia

DURING THE INTERVIEW, SAWYER ASKED CLAPPER, "FIRST OF ALL, LONDON. HOW SERIOUS IS IT? ANY IMPLICATION THAT IT WAS COMING HERE?" CLAPPER STARED INTO SPACE BEFORE ASKING, "LONDON?"



FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Starting with every rape survivor's 'friend' Naomi Wolf. For those who are late to the party, Naomi continues to attack two women who may have been raped by Julian Assange of WikiLeaks. She insists that she's a big friend to rape survivors -- apparently when not implying they're liars or CIA agents or whatever else. Naomi, when did you cover Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi? That's right, you didn't. You had 'other things to do,' important ones. For example, when the final trial was taking place in Kentucky, you had a 'pressing' issue to cover instead as Cedric's "Naomi Wolf wins Dumbest on the Face of the Planet" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! BACKLASH NAOMI WOLF!" noted May 4, 2009:

WHAT IS FEMINISM?

DON'T ASK DITHER-BRAINED NAOMI WOLF. THOUGH THE WAR CRIMES TRIAL INTO THE GANG-RAPE AND MURDER OF 14 YEAR-OLD IRAQI GIRL ABEER IS ONGOING IN KENTUCKY, NAOMI SHOWED UP AT THE WASHINGTON POST TO CONGRATULATE MICHELLE OBAMA FOR GIVING UP HER INDEPENDENCE AND STRENGTH AND TURNING INTO A "FASHION PLATE."

Robin Morgan was able to write about it, Naomi. Video here of Jane Fonda speaking on the War Crimes. See, Naomi, most of us feminists were tackling this story. Where the hell were you? You couldn't be bothered, now could you? But now you want to boast about your expertise and commitment to the issue?

Late to the party like Naomi? Fortunately the ring-leader is trying to get sympathy so we can provide the catch up. May 7, 2009 Steven D. Green was convicted for his crimes in March 12, 2006 gang-rape and murder of Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi, the murder of her parents Kassem and Fakhriya and the murder of her five-year-old sister Hadeel while Green was serving in Iraq. Green was found to have killed all four, to have participated in the gang-rape of Abeer and to have been the ringleader of the conspiracy to commit the crimes and the conspiracy to cover them up. May 21, 2009, the federal jury deadlocked on the death penalty and instead kicking in sentence to life in prison. September 4, 2009, he was sentenced. Throughout it all, he failed to take accountability, instead whining and playing the victim. AP's Brett Barrouquere was one of the first reporters to cover Green's crimes ad he continues to cover the case. Sunday he was reporting on an interview he's done with Green.

During the interview, Green whines about himself a lot and -- as with his court appearance -- demonstrates no remorse or real accountability for his actions. At one point, he tells Barrouquere, "If I hadn't ever been in Iraq, I wouldn't be in the kind of trouble I'm in now. I'm not happy about that." Well he could have gotten the death penalty, maybe he should be happy. Death is what he sentenced two young Iraqi girls and their parents to. Abeer's surviving family was very upset that he was going to prison and not getting the death penalty.

Green killed four people, in cold blood. While he likes to lessen the rape, it was gang-rape and he went last. Plenty of time to 'cool off' (he's claiming he couldn't think more than 10 minutes into the future). He took part in the gang-rape and he killed Abeer. And before he killed her, he'd already killed her sister and her two parents.

He killed four people. He gang-raped a 14-year-old girl. A 14-year-old girl he'd already been stalking. He'd stopped her at the neighborhood checkpoint, made unwanted advances and comments, her parents were getting her out of town, she would have been gone the next morning. But he and his friends broke into the family's home and gang-raped Abeer while she could hear Green killing her parents and her sister in the next room, then Green raped her, killing her after he got off and then attempting to set her corpse on fire.

He tries to claim in his latest revision of history that he was despondent over deaths in Iraq but, as the jury was informed during the trial, "screwing Iraqi chicks" was what they'd been talking about as they began plotting, not about any deaths.

Green was tried in civilian court because he had already been discharged when the crimes came to light. His co-conspirators were tried in military court (and were found guilty or admitted their guilt). On the military side, it started with an August 2006 Article 32 hearing held in Iraq in which US Army Capt Alex Pickands pointed out:

"Murder, not war. Rape, not war. That's what we're here talking about today. Not all that business about cold food, checkpoints, personnel assignments. Cold food didn't kill that family. Personnel assignments didn't rape and murder that 14-year-old little girl. . . . They gathered over cards and booze to come up with a plan to rape and murder that little girl. She was young and attractive. They knew where she was because they had seen her on a previous patrol. She was close. She was vulnerable."

Green's been playing the victim for some time. In his interview today, he's claiming he enlisted out of 'duty to country.' Really? Because it's already on record that he enlisted because he'd been arrested (again) and exhausted all other avenues. (He's also very lucky his juvenile records remain sealed.) At 19, with his record, he was looking at doing time. It was jail or the military and he made his choice. From day one, he's been convinced (and his attorneys believe it as well) that he doesn't belong behind bars for life and that's how he's acted all along (it's why he wasn't able to pull off a plea bargain, Marisa Ford wasn't going to go along with a slap on the wrist for a gang-rape and four murders). He killed four people in cold blood.

To this day, there has been no effort on his part to acknowledge what his actions did -- that's why Abeer's family was outraged in the courtroom with her aunt having to leave the courtroom so enraged was she by his cavalier remarks. Green needs to take responsible for his actions. He wants to blame the military. The killers of Pfc Joseph John Anzack, Sgt 1st Class James D. Connell, Spc Daniel W. Courneya, Pfc Byron Wayne Fouty, Spc Alex Ramon Jimenez, Cpl Christopher E. Murphy and Sgt Anthony J. Schober are responsible for their actions as well. But it is something that Green has still never mentioned the 7 dead US soldiers whose killers claimed that they attacked because of the War Crimes carried out in Abeer's home -- they named. And this was before the US military was aware of what took place, they made their claim of retaliation for the murder and rape before the US military knew about what really happened at Abeer's home (it had been done by 'insurgents' was the finding at that time). After the assault on the seven soldiers (three of whom were in kidnapped status at the time and would later be found to be dead), Pfc Justin Watt came forward with what he'd heard the co-consipirators say and do (he came forward at the end of June 2006, a month after the assault on US soldiers). Green has never publicly acknowledged the deaths of those 7 soldiers. But he wants to repeatedly claim his actions were forced on him.

Hey, maybe Naomi Wolf can take up his case next? Maybe, when he was killing the five-year-old girl, she didn't scream, "NO!" Maybe she just cried and so it wasn't -- in Naomi Wolf's mind -- Green's fault? Maybe when Green became the third man in a row to rape Abeer, she just sobbed and didn't get out the words "NO!" which made it okay with Naomi? Irin Carmon (Jezebel) takes on the 'logic' Naomi offered yesterday on Democracy Now!:

She added, "If you're going to treat women as moral adults, and if you're going to take the issue of rape seriously, the person who's engaging in what he thinks is consensual sex, has to be told, 'I don't want this,' and again and again and again, these women did not say, this was not consensual."

Friedman replied that if the women had been consenting, Assange wouldn't have needed to pin one down with his arms, or penetrate the other while she was sleeping, without a condom, contrary to her stated demand to use one. "Taking your clothes off with someone does not mean you consented to all sexual activity," she reminded Wolf.

Wolf claimed Assange "consulted with the women" and that they had told him "yes, yes, yes," which isn't in the police report leaks that I read. "You're not respecting women by casting them as unable to assert what they want, or unwilling to speak about what they wish," she said.

In a perfect world, every rape would be clear-cut and involve someone shouting no so as to make legal enforcement easy. Oh wait, in a perfect world, all sex would be consensual and no one would be woken up with an unwelcome, unsheathed penis inside of them.

Carmon also tackles Michael Moore and Keith Olbermann. Moore we've called out here multiple times over the years. We were never, ever stupid enough to quote Olbermann here because his reputation with women is so vile that even the dark days of the Bush era, we knew to stay away from him. Bob Somerby has long documented Olbermann's sexism so you can refer to The Daily Howler. I don't excuse the behavior of either man but, as Ava and I have argued, they couldn't get away with it today if a woman wasn't waiving them through and providing them with cover so they could hide behind her and claim, "Hey, even 'feminist' Naomi Wolf . . ." Jessica Valentie offers a roundup of links on the topic here.

On Democracy Now!, Naomi claimed that she'd heard from tons and tons of women which is surprising since her Facebook page is largely all male. When a woman does comment, she's either a right-winger supporting Naomi or someone calling her out like Rachel Casebolt:

Rachel Casebolt Naomi: "So... if you're going to take the issue of rape seriously, the person who's engaging in what he thinks is consensual sex has to be told, "I don't want this." And again and again and again, these women did not say, "This is not consensual."
This is some repugnant, anti-feminist trash.
No one has a right to someone... else's body without affirmative consent. Unless you get a "yes," you do not have consent. Lack of "no" is not consent. This is Feminism 101 stuff. What were you thinking?
As Harriet J posted today, "With friends like these, who needs rape culture?"

I wonder if those 'women' Naomi claims to 'hear from' exist only in her head? At Girlfriend Junction, Jenn writes in the comments, "Also, I am still confused as to why Naomi Wolf gets to be some sort of 'feminist spokesperson' on this, after repeatedly putting her foot in ther mouth. And repeatedly being hell privileg-y." Naomi Wolf is not a spokesperson nor is she an expert on rape and if anyone bothered to read her bad books, they'd know that. Since January 2009, Ava and I have been calling her out on the gang-rape she enabled in college, refusing to call out the rapists (her friends) because she didn't want to be called a (her term) "lesbo." Realizing how few people read (and how few readers bother to read Naomi Wolf in the first place), Elaine posted that section from Promiscuities last night (it pages 177 - 178, by the way) so you can refer to that if you're just now discovering that Naomi repeatedly spits on women and stands with male sexual assailants. Yesterday on Democracy Now!, Naomi wanted to brag and get credit for "my 23 years of supporting rape victims" which would be after the gang-rape she helped cover up and for "working in rape crisis centers". Really? She thinks she can claim credit for the latter. Has she not read her own writing? Check out chapter eleven of her second book, Fire With Fire ("Case Studies" is chapter eleven), which is nothing but a rant about the rape center and the women at it. Here are some of her written complaints in her own words:

* my spirits collapsed the instant I walked in the door

* deadening atmoshpehere

* [trapped in the beauty myth of her own making] people's skin look[ed] dead white or liverish gray-brown

* a phone bank that was always too busy

* dried-whey powdered coffee creamer, bulk freeze-dried coffee

And that's just her opening. If only the workers at the center valued flowers as much as Naomi and physical appearance as much as she did. She confesses to treating "myself to a nice long drink of self-righteousness" thereby establishing where her current bad habits started. She whines that her work at the rape center (pay attention to this) would leave her "prompted to pick a fight with my perfectly friendly, nonabusive, housework-sharing boyfriend" (the one who dry humped the unwilling woman?). She whines that volunteering at the rape center meant "You were not allowed to laugh too much" and "You were never supposed to talk affectionately about your boyfriend". And, she whines, "The rape crisis center starved for lack of fun." Guess the Peace Corps must be thrilled right now that they didn't get college-era Naomi.

Reflecting on Fire With Fire today, you quickly grasp that Naomi was actually charting how to succeed via sexism. She pretended otherwise but how else is page 95 to be read, for example? It's there that she confesses that declaring "Rape is bad" "can position a woman as a peculiar outsider." That sort of explains why she now attacks women who may have been raped, doesn't it? And certainly pages 97 through 99 (semi-charting her self-embarrassing encounters with an anti-feminist who publicly referred to her as an "air head") read as though they're not only describing that woman, they're describing herself. Choosing one sentence at random from page 97: "A writer who defines herself as a feminist while she generates some traditionally antifeminist opinions, ___ was feted in the very press that had assiduously neglected over the course of a decade to present to the public the currents of thought she indicted." Reads like Wolf's autobiography today.

Wolf claims that she's now reaching more and more women. When the reality is -- check out any site with comments -- she's actually reaching men who loathe women and self-hating women and feeding into their hatred of women. She is the woman she criticizes starting on page 97. What a proud moment for her. This crowd ignores an actual feminist -- Susan Faludi, for example, who emerged in the book world at the same time as Naomi and whose books have always outsold Naomi's -- and embraces Naomi and the reason is obvious (even to Naomi): She's selling attacks on women and providing the yes-you-may to attackers. That's why they've embraced her. Caroline May (of the right-wing Daily Caller) files an article on the Naomi versus feminists. In it, Women's Media Center's Yana Walton calls out Michael Moore and Keith Oblermann and states, "When sexual violence and rape is such a huge part of women's lives internationally I don't think it is ever helpful to legitimize it. Rape is rape is rape is rape, and should be prosecuted as such." The New Agenda's Amy Siskind is quoted stating, "[Wolf] trivialized these women and rape generally and if you look online and at the blogosphere, she certainly stands alone. If this is what it is to be a Progressive, that we sublimate women and rape so thatw e can celebrate whatever [Michael Moore] is celebrating with freedom of speech. And I think women on the Progressive side need to reexamine how they are being treated." Angus Johnson (Student Activism) critiques (f-word warning) Naomi's nonsense on Democracy Now here. And Jill (Feministe) notes a campaign to raise awareness in Sweden of sexual assault.

Julian Assange is the public face of WikiLeaks. He may or may not have raped two women. He does seem in danger of losing it these days and WikiLeaks would be wise to find a new public face quickly. Adam Gabbatt (Guardian) documents Assange's rants that the Guardian is out to get him and deliberately attempted to destroy his chances at receiving bill:

The discussion was broadcast as the Times [of London] published its own interview with Assange, in which he said documents had been leaked to the Guardian in an attempt to undermine his final bail hearing, held on 16 December.

However, the documents were not leaked to the Guardian, and details from the documents to which Assange referred were published only after the 16 December hearing.

Assange was granted bail on 14 December, but remained in prison for a further two days after the Swedish authorities challenged the decision.

[. . .]

The Guardian published an article which included some details from the police statements online at 9.30pm on Friday 17 December, and in the Guardian newspaper on Saturday 18 December.

Dan Murphy (Christian Science Monitor) adds, "Assange's falling out with former allies may come as little surprise to many who have worked closely with him. Former WikiLeaks No. 2 Daniel Domscheit-Berg, who formerly went by the pseudonym Daniel Schmitt until breaking with the group earlier this year, has described Assange as "dictatorial" and has said he's creating a rival group dedicated to releasing government secrets in a more open and transparent manner." Nitash Tiku's "The WikiLeaks Sage Is All Working Out According to Assange's Plan" (New York Magazine) explores an essay/manifesto Julian Assange wrote and its meaning in light of his actions today:

Provoking a stronger enemy into an overreaction is a classic strategy for insurgents, and it's not hard to see how some of the U.S. reactions to WikiLeaks have not been in the nation's best interest. Pressuring private companies to cut off websites the government doesn't like, especially without due process, will make it pretty hard for the U.S. to maintain the high ground with authoritarian governments like China or Iran. And prosecuting Assange will set a dangerous precedent that could land just about any newspaper or media outlet in the crosshairs next time, dangerously undermining the First Amendment.

Yesterday the Guardian posted one of the US State Dept cables WikiLeaks had released in which the State Dept detailed a visit by Italian government officials expressing that the death of Nicola Calipari was not something the government is concerned one and that they desire "to put the incident behind us" and to avoid harming "our strong friendship and alliance." If true, that's appalling. Nicola Calipari was an Italian government agent. He was sent to Italy to secure the release of journalist Giuliana Sgrena. After doing so, he was shot dead by US soldier Mario Lozano Jr. and Sgrena was left wounded. Rajeev Syal (Guardian) reports on another cable which John Nagal wrote (January 2010) that "Halliburton's senior executive in Iraq accused private security companies of operating a 'mafia' to artificially inflate their 'outrageous prices'."

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Nouri's high drama adds up to very little"
"Iraqi Christians"
"I don't do false praise"
"Christmas and the economy"
"Brief"
"movies"
"John Halle gets banned"
"Music"
"Libbyliberal, stop being a DAMN FOOL"
"Comic and in general on movies"
"No, Naomi Wolf is not an expert on sexual assault"
"Isaiah, Third and links"
"Greta Garbo returns!"
"THE RETURN OF THE ANGRY LITTLE BITCH!"

THE RETURN OF THE ANGRY LITTLE BITCH!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE


AS PART OF THE FACEBOOK CONSPIRACY THAT CREATED THE 'SPONTANEOUS' SUPPORT OF THE NOW CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O, ANGRY AND CLOSETED MARXIST SAM GRAHAM-FELSEN MOVED FROM SERVING AS PEACE RESISTER KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL'S MAID-ASSISTANT-AND-OR-BOY-TOY AND WENT TO WORK FOR BARRY O'S CAMPAIGN AS "THE OFFICIAL CAMPAIGN BLOGGER."

A GLORIFIED TITLE FOR WHAT WAS "SAMMY-THE-GIRL-FRIDAY." IN APRIL 2008, THE GROWN MAN WAS WETTING HIS PANTIES IN PUBLIC OVER THIS REPORT AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY, HAVING SPOKEN TO HIS OLD FRIENDS WHO HAD SPILLED THE BEANS, WETTING HIS PANTIES OVER WHAT THE REPORTER MIGHT PUBLISH NEXT SINCE SHE KNEW EVERYTHING -- YES, SHE KNEW EVERYTHING.

SAMMY GRAHAMY-FELSEN THEN BEGAN SENDING MULTIPLE E-MAILS AND HAVING HIS FRIENDS SEND MULTIPLE E-MAILS TO THE REPORTER INSISTING THAT SHE WAS DESTROYING HIS LIFE AND HE WAS JUST WORKING ON A CAMPAIGN AND WASN'T EVEN REALLY A WRITER AND JUST WANTED TO BE LEFT ALONE AND WHINE, WHINE, WHINE.

SAMMY HAS SURFACED AGAIN. WHORING AS A WRITER WHO STILL CAN'T TELL THE TRUTH.

LEADING TO SO MANY QUESTIONS. SUCH AS: WILL THEIR BE A PART II TO THIS REPORT? WHAT ELSE DID SAMMY HIDE? WILL THE REAL BEHIND THE SCENE STORY OF THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN SURFACE? AND, JUST FOR FUN, WHEN PATSY KELLY SERVED AS TALLULAH BANKHEAD'S MAID, SHE HAD TO GIVE BANKHEAD VAGINAL MASSAGES, SO WHAT DID SAMMY HAVE TO GIVE KATRINA?


FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Starting with peace news.

There's a chance peace will come in your life please buy one

For sometimes when I am feeling as a big as the land

With the velvet hills in the small of my back

And my hands are playing in the sand

And my feet are swimming in all of the waters

All of the rivers are givers to the ocean

According to plan, according to man.

-- "Peace Will Come (According To Plan)," written by Melanie (Safka) and first appears on her 1970 album Leftover Wine and her brand new album is Ever Since You Never Heard of Me

Thursday a protest held outside the White House (see Friday's snapshot). Friday, Elaine observed, "Don't come asking why there aren't more protests if, when there is a significant one, you don't bother to cover it as significant. A couple of hundred participated on a cold DC day, when it was snowing. That's a lot in my opinion and it's an important protest and a news worthy one." She noted the report by Brian Ward (US Socialist Worker) who concludes his piece with: "The energy of the D.C. protest was high, even though it was snowing and cold. Protesters saw the importance of a rebirth of the antiwar movement, especially since Obama has made the Afghanistan war 'his war.' We need to organize and fight to end the wars and occupations." The Party for Socialism and Liberation explains, "Organized by Veterans for Peace, March Forward!, the ANSWER Coalition (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) and several other organizations, the actions was the largest veterans-led civil disobedience since the wars began 10 years ago. Veterans of Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, World War II and other conflicts were among those arrested. Those arrested included Brian Becker, National Coordinator of the ANSWER Coalition; Mike Prysner and Ryan Endicott, both Iraq War veterans and March Forward! organizers; Mike Ferner, president of Veterans for Peace; and Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the famous Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam War." Tim King (Salem-News) also reports on the protest and he notes journalist and author Chris Hedges' speech:

Hope demands for others what we demand for ourselves.
Hope does not separate us from them.
Hope sees our enemy in our own face.
Hope is not for the practical and the sophisticated, the cynics and the complacent, the defeated and the fearful, hope is what the corporate state which saturates our airwaves with lies hopes seeks obliterate.
Hope is what this corporate state is determined to crush. 'Be afraid' they tell us, 'surrender your liberties to us so we can make the world safe from terror, don't resist, embrace the alienation of our cheerful conformity, buy our products, without them you are worthless, become our brands, do not look up from your electronic hallucinations, no, above all do not think, obey'.

Click here for the OpEdNews page with video of Chris Hedges' speech and a full transcript.

Libbyliberal (Corrente) covered it this weekend and included fast-and-loose Dave Lindorff who swore on Saturday, "And yet, the protest event was completely blacked out by the corporate news media." Not knowing his history, Libbyliberal takes him at face value. But reality and Dave Lindorff are distant relations. From Thursday's snapshot:

Cameron Joseph (National Journal) reports that Daniel Ellsberg was at the White House today "chained to its snowy gates as part of a protest organized by Veterans for Peace [. . .] Ellsberg was one of dozens arrested, the Associated Press reported." David Jackson (USA Today) explains, "It's cold and snowy in Washington, D.C., but that didn't stop protestors from showing up at the White House today to demonstrate against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Police appeared to arrest an unknown number of protestors as they sought to chain themselves to the White House fence." UPI offers a photo essay of the protest by Kevin Dietsch. David Swanson's War Is A Crime offers video of the protest. Paul Courson (CNN) states 131 is the number of activists arrested and cites US Park Police spokesperson David Schlosser as the source for that number. At Stop These Wars (umbrella group for the various groups and individuals organizing the action) it's noted, "131 veterans and others were arrested December 16 in front of the White House. Preliminary gallery of photos here. More to come."

As we noted at Third, "So that's CNN, National Journal, USA Today, AP ad UPI. NPR would include it in hourly headlines." And they all covered it on Thursday while Dave Lindorff served up his (error filled) lecture on Saturday. Thursday on NPR's All Things Considered (link has audio and text), Mara Liasson would observe, "Polls show the Afghanistan War is now opposed by majorities in almost every country that sent troops, including the U.S. Dozens were arrested today outside the White House protesting the war. But Secretary [Robert] Gates made it clear the war is not about to end and that the decision to escalate a year ago was not revisited in the current review." If Dave Lindorff experienced a blackout, it wasn't a media one and maybe he shouldn't drink so much? And then there's Ray-Ray McGovern who shows up today to insist of Thursday's action: "What? You didn't hear about any of this, including the arrest of 135 veterans and other anti-war activists in front of the White House? Need I remind you of the Fawning Corporate Media and how its practioners have always downplayed or ignored protests, large or small, against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?"

It was covered in the Media -- in the Corporate Media. It's too bad Ray McGovern fancies himself a media critic because that's just another failed task on his resume. I'm all for holding the media accountable -- but unlike Ray McGovern, I hold it all accountable, All Things Media Big and Small. And here's the reality. By refusing to cover it, Little Media (Panhandle Media) ensured that Big Media (Real Media) doesn't have to worry. The protest took place on Thursday. They covered it as much -- and often more -- than Panhandle Media. Ray-Ray doesn't know the first thing about the media and needs to sit his tired ass down. He loves to tell this one story about how NYT published the Pentagon Papers only because they were afraid others would cover it. Well, Ray-Ray, where was Democracy Now's live remote? What, they can bore us to tears with 10 hours of the DNC and 10 hours of the RNC conventions but Democracy Now can't cover the protest? Then there's no reason for Big Media to worry that they'll look foolish for not covering it. Why wasn't Leigh Ann Caldwell filing a report -- not a summary gleaned from AP but an actual damn report? She's FSRN's DC correspondent after all. Click here for Free Speech Radio News' embarrassing coverage. They didn't even give it 80 words and they air on Pacifica aka Peace Radio.

I'm sorry Ray-Ray showed up late to the party and forgot to put on pants, but he's responsible for his own self-embarrassment. Amy Goodman can drag her ass to Mexico for Cancun talks on climate -- that we all know aren't going to accomplish a damn thing -- but the dumbass can't get her ass to DC for this protest? Ray-Ray, Lindorff and the other fools need to stop blaming Corporate Media -- which did cover it -- and grasp that if Little Media was treating like a real story when it happened, it would have influenced coverage elsewhere. That's how it works. People like Ray-Ray don't know a damn thing about the media or how it works and would do well to find another topic to discuss. "Heat" generates coverage. Which is why we didn't scream about the Tea Party here. But The Nation and The Progressive and MSNBC's nightime line up refusing to shut up about the Tea Party gave it heat and it got coverage. If the same outlets had done the same with the protest, it would have dominated Friday morning's news cycle. Why is that?

Ray-Ray can't tell you because he's ignorant of the media. A) It would have provided "heat" to the story and B) the mid-terms. The honeymoon's over with the press. They're looking for stories that reflect that attitudes of America. Barack's honeymoon's over and the left protesting him -- not just penning articles but protesting him? -- that would have fed into the news cycle so quickly and so well -- and the media had already constructed the narrative for it. In fact, that's why it was covered by the outlets that did cover it.

This is the third snapshot we've covered the peace action in -- we've treated it seriously. On the articles now rushing out on the topic, Bradley Manning is innocent until proven guilty. We're not highlighting any article that can't grasp that. As Dalia Hashad notes on Law and Disorder Radio (WBAI today, throughout the country the rest of the week) of government charges in another case, "I don't like to get into the details of these cases because the narrative is controlled by the FBI." We're not linking to articles where the writer's doing the government's bidding by insisting Bradley Manning is guilty as charged -- and doing so when Bradley has never spoken publicly on the charges. Sunday Cheryl Biren (OpEdNews) files the most in-depth report I've seen so far and it has text and videos. We'll note this from it:

Firing up the crowd was March Forward's Michael Prysner. Prysner, who joined the Army at 17, took part in the initial invasion of Iraq. In an earlier report, he explained that he spent 12 months in Iraq doing everything from prisoner interrogations to home raids. He believed that he was going to Iraq to help liberate an oppressed people. He said that he soon realized that his purpose was to be the oppressor and to "clear the way for the U.S. Corporations with no regard for human life."

Now the national director of MarchForward.org, Prysner told OpEdNews, "The message is that it is crystal clear that this government is not going to end these wars, the wars that the vast majority of people want to end and the wars that have no purpose other than expanding the reach of Wall Street and oil giants and that is really the main function of US policy."

He concluded that "Because this government is incapable of ending these wars and will not end these wars, the people have to stand up and fight to force these wars to end."

When asked about the efficacy of such actions, Prysner replied, "We don't think we're going to end the war today. We know that. But, these things to do make a difference. We're sending a message to the government that we're not waiting for them to spill out more lies about the war and more falsehoods and we're going to stand up and fight and that we're going to disrupt business as usual." Prysner hopes to bring people into the movement as part of a growing force that he believes will be capable of ending the wars.

At the Indypendent, Ellen Davidson has a brief text report with links to many of her photos of the action. By the way, is it true that despite all Julian Assange's claims to be financially supporting Bradley's legal defense, that WikiLeaks has never given a penny to it? Yes, it is. From the Bradley Mannin Support Network:

Immediately following Bradley's arrest in late June 2010, the whistle-blower website WikiLeaks publicly solicited donations specifically for Bradley's legal defense expenses. In July 2010, WikiLeaks pledged to contribute "a substantial amount" towards Bradley's legal defense costs. Since Bradley's selection of David Coombs as his civilian defense attorney in August 2010, the Bradley Manning Support Network has unsuccessfully attempted to facilitate the pledged WikiLeaks contribution.

"We understand the difficult situation Wikileaks currently faces as the world's governments conspire to extinguish the whistle-blower website," explained Jeff Paterson, Bradley Manning Support Network steering committee member and project director of Courage to Resist (www.couragetoresist.org). "However, in order to meet Bradley Manning's legal defense needs, we're forced to clarify that Wikileaks has not yet made a contribution towards this effort. We certainly welcome any contribution from Wikileaks, but we need to inform our supporters that it may not be forthcoming and that their continued contributions and support are crucial."

Donations towards Bradley's defense can be made at www.bradleymanning.org -- to either the Support Network for both public education efforts and legal defense, or directly to Bradley's legal trust account.

So despite repeatedly and publicly stating he would be covering the defense cost, Julian Assange has provided not one penny? All these months later, not one penny? Support Bradley Manning notes Bradley has now been held a prisoner for 208 days without trial including December 17th which was his 23rd birthday. That's a lot to put on the shoulders of someone so very young.

Monday April 5th, WikiLeaks released US military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7th, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported in August that Manning had been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring classified information to his personal computer between November and May and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of classified information." Manning has been convicted in the public square despite the fact that he's been convicted in no state and has made no public statements -- despite any claims otherwise, he has made no public statements. Manning is now at Quantico in Virginia, under military lock and key and still not allowed to speak to the press. As Daniel Ellsberg reminded from the stage in Oakland last September, "We don't know all the facts." But we know, as Ellsberg pointed out, that the US military is attempting to prosecute Bradley. Paul Courson (CNN) notes Bradley is a suspect and, "He has not admitted guilt in either incident, his supporters say."

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Don't have the baby gifts delivered just yet"
"The frenzy over celebrity, the silence over a political prisoner"
"Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Not Quite There"
"And the war drags on . . ."
"As Tina sang, We don't need another hero"
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

• Truest statement of the week
• A note to our readers
• Editorial: It's not always a conspiracy
• TV: The Craziest Sitcom
• Dorm Posters From Hell
• Nicole Colson forgot to write Third
• Twas the year without Christmas
• Wack Job Ishmael Reed
• ETAN on Paupuan Prionsers
• Highlights

"Democratic Party motto is: Nepoltism"
"THIS JUST IN! ELECTED DEMS HELP SELF!"

THIS JUST IN! ELECTED DEMS HELP SELF!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

CADAVERS NANCY PELOSI AND HARRY REID PUSHED THROUGH THE TAX CUTS -- FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE BUSH TAX CUTS -- THIS WEEK BUT REFUSED TO JOIN BARRY O FOR A SIGNING CERMONY IN A BRAVE STAND ON PRINCIPLE.

NANCY WAS TOO BUSY ENSURING THAT HER USELESS DAUGHTER WAS APPOINTED THE HEAD OF YOUNG DEMOCRATS. NOTED ONE OBSERVER, "AT 42, SHE'S A LITTLE OLD TO BE CONSIDERED A YOUNG DEMOCRAT." THE REPLY, OF COURSE, IS: WELL HAVE YOU LOOKED AT HER MOTHER?

CHRISTINE PELOSI'S NEW JOB CONTINUES THE LONG TRADITION OF NEPOTISM IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WHERE LEADERS AND 'LEADERS' ENSURE THAT THEIR UNEMPLOYABLE CHILDREN GET CUSHY JOBS SUCH AS PUTTING SON-OF-TOM NATHAN DASCHLE IN CHARGE OF THE DGA -- AN ORGANIZATION WHOSE SOLE TASK IS TO ELECT DEMOCRATS AS STATE GOVERNORS. AND WE ALL SAW HOW THAT WORKED OUT.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Starting with Iraqi refugees, the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) has announced its objection to Europe's forced returns of Iraqi refugees. Spokesperson Melissa Fleming states, "UNHCR strongly reiterates its call on countries to refrain from deporting Iraqis who originate from the most perilous parts of the country." UNHCR adds, "In the latest incident, Sweden on Wednesday forcibly returned a group of some 20 Iraqis to Baghdad, including five Christians originally from the Iraqi capital. Fleming, speaking to journalists in Geneva, said UNHCR staff in Baghdad had since interviewed three of the Christians and three Arab Muslims among the group. One of the Christian men said he escaped Iraq in 2007 after militiamen threatened to kill him. He travelled through several countries in the Middle East and Europe before reaching Sweden, where he applied for asylum." And as wrong and as bad as that is, The Local reports that the Swedish government deported one 52-year-old male to Iraq . . . but he wasn't from Iraq. He was from Iran.

The latest wave of attacks on Iraqi Christians began October 31st with the assault on Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad in which at least seventy people were killed and another seventy injured. Since then, Baghdad and Mosul especially have been flashpoints for violence aimed at Iraqi Christians with many fleeing -- and many fleeing to the KRG. UNHCR spokesperson Melissa Fleming noted today, "This forced return comes at a time when our five offices in Iraq are noting a significant increase in Christians fleeing Baghdad and Mosul to the Kurdistan Regional Government Region and Ninewa plains [in the north." She cited 68 as the number of people killed in the October 31st attack on the church. Joe Sterling (CNN) notes 70 were killed (53 of which were Iraqi Christians). Fleming explained 1,000 families as the number that has left Baghdad and Mosul for northern Iraq. She also noted that Iraqi Christians are also fleeing to Jordan, Lebanon and Syria with UNHCR offices in each country registering an increase in the "number of Iraqi Christians arriving and contacting UNHCR for registration and help." She put the efforts of the European countries doing these forced deportations into perspective when she noted one Iraqi Christian male in Jordan had been forcibly returned to Iraq "just days beforehand" by a European country she didn't identify. He "left the church minutes before the bombing took place." No, (I'm saying this) it is not safe for Iraqi refugees to return to Iraq. If they want to, every one has the right to live their lives as they see fit. But no host country should be forcing Iraqi refugees to return to Iraq. Katherine T. Phan (Christian Post) covers the statements: "The agency expressed dismay that Sweden forcibly repatriated this week a group of 20 Iraqis, including 5 Christians from Baghdad, after their applications for asylum were rejected." Martin Chulov (Guardian) notes that the figures Fleming offered on Iraqi Christians leaving the country were seen as too low by the head of the country's Christians Endowment Group's Abdullah al-Naftali who says, "I can tell you that the numbers the UN are citing are too low. We have recorded a 213% increase in normal departures since the church massacre. It is not a slow, or steady exodus -- it is a rapid one."

October 31st started the latest wave of attacks on Iraqi Christians. Latest wave. For a look at key moments in earlier waves, BBC News offers a timeline here. Stephanie Nebehay (Reuters) notes that, before the start of the Iraq War, there were 1.5 million Christians in Iraq and that the number has fallen to approximately 850,000. Aaron Howard (Jewish Herald-Voice) quotes the Univerisy of Chicago Medical Center's Dr. Elmer Abbo who is also the executive director for Assyrian American National Coalition, "I will clearly say this: What is happening in Iraq is, at the minimum, ethnic cleansing. Other people will say it is genocide,e ven if the numbers are not there, because the Assyrians are being killed in a deliberate and strategic way. We're being oppressed to the point where we're being pushed out of the country. Sometimes, it is under direct force where people come to your door and say 'convert, be killed or leave.' Those are the options. Whenever there's a church bombing, it says: You are not welcome here. Leave, or we will kill you." Asia News notes that, in addition to barrier being erected around churches in Baghdad and Mosul, there will be checkpoints and that, "The Christmas celebrations will consist of masses and small parties within the boundaries of the parishes, but there is frustration among the faithful." Alan Holdren (Catholic News Agency) quotes, Father Georges Jahola of Mosul stating, "Christians are being extinguished in Iraq, while Iraq remains Muslim. [And people want to leave due to safety] They see that there is no longer a place for Christians in Iraq. Even for us as a Church, we cannot deny it." Rebecca Santana (Associated Press) speaks with Ban Daub who was at Our Lady of Salvation Church with her nephew when it was attacked October 31st and she states, "We are afraid for our sons and our children. There is no life in Baghdad for the Christians." The editorial board for the Orange County Register offers, "It may be that it will prove impossible for a Christian community to thrive in an Iraq that is officially Muslim, and that almost all Iraqi Christians will eventually flee. That would be sad; some of the oldest Christian monasteries in the world are in Iraq. It would not, however, be unprecedented. In 1948, after the establishment of the state of Israel, almost all of Iraq's Jews fled the country."

Wednesday's snapshot included:

Meanwhile Shashank Bengali (McClatchy Newspapers) reports, "Iraq closed another chapter on the Saddam Hussein era Wednesday when the United Nations Security Council lifted most of the sanctions that it had imposed after the late ex-dictator's invasion of Kuwait 20 years ago." Obvious benefit? $700 million from the oil-for-food program is about to be "into Iraq's escrow account". Previously, they couldn't touch the money. File it under "I'll have what Joe's snorting," BBC News reports that US Vice President Joe Biden -- who chaired the meeting -- declared, "Iraq is on the cusp of something remarkable -- a stable, self-reliant nation." Where have we heard that before?

That's really all that was worth saying. A number of articles were written -- some passing as analysis, none worth linking to. But Hoshyar Zebari, Foreign Minister of Iraq, held a press briefing after the meeting and I am surprised his remarks weren't covered. We'll note his opening statement in full:

Well today was a momentus day for Iraq. And a happy day. After years of being sanctioned by the Security Council resolution due to the agressions, the beligerance of Saddam's regime, I think today we close a chapter, a dark chapter. And today's session? So the passage of three security resolutions demonstrated the international support for Iraq to get rid of previous sanctions and restrictions on its sovereignty and independence. So my country and I'm personally very, very delighted to have this support. We are overwhelmed by this support. And I think this shows Iraq is coming back truly to its rightful place among the community of nations. Iraq has been a founding member of the United Nations and many other organizations and I think today is a great day for the people of Iraq, for the country. Still we have some way to go to be completely free of Chapter 7. That is, we need to fulfill our obligations toward our brotherly country Kuwait. I think today event will give us momentum in fact to address all remaining issues with Kuwait under Chapter 7, to close that chapter in a good faith and a mutual trust between our two nations. This will be the task of the of the new Iraqi government which is in the forming and it's formation is imment. It would be announced very, very soon, it wouldn't be weeks, it would be days. And this issue of the situation between Iraq and Kuwait will be a top priority for the next government to address it.

Evenlyn Leopold (Huffington Post) does one of the better reports which was published today:

Specifically, the meeting on Wednesday adopted three resolutions: on weapons of mass destruction, on ending the oil-for-food program and on ending immunities that protected Baghdad from claims during the Saddam Hussein era.

Iraq has signed prohibitions against chemical and biological weapons and cooperated with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN nuclear watchdog. One resolution allows it to develop a civilian nuclear program, although the Council in February said Iraq first had to ratify an agreement, the so-called Additional Protocol that would allow intrusive inspections by the IAEA. Parliament has not ratified yet and the resolution requires it to do so as soon as possible.

Another resolution formally shut down the mismanaged oil-for-food program, which was supposed to bring in supplies to ordinary Iraqis suffering under sanctions. France abstained on this measure, concerned that it did not sufficiently protect BNP Paribus, the Paris-based bank, which handled payments. And a third resolution dissolves in June a special supervised fund over how oil revenues are spent and protected Iraq from legal claims. About $22 million in claims are still outstanding.

But resolutions concerning Kuwait were left intact, including compensating for stolen items and demarcating the border, especially the waterways. 5 percent of the Iraq's oil revenues will continue to be earmarked for Kuwait.

And my praise is for the reporting (she also has several opinions throughout which are a little to Up With Democratic People for me). Outside the US media, Reidar Visser (Iraq and Gulf Analysis) offered his take on US efforts:

First, the Obama administration played a key role in Sunnifying the Iraqi nationalism of Iraqiyya so that it could be more acceptable to Iran: By encouraging Iraqiyya to accept a junior, "Sunni" role in a power-sharing arrangement for the next government where the Iranian-supported Shiite parties clearly have the upper hand, Washington basically gave Iran what it wanted in Iraq in terms of a politics defined in sectarian fronts. To add insult to injury advisers to Obama went on to spin the US involvement in the affair as a triumph of American diplomacy against Iran! Today the US government went a little further: To celebrate the latest "progress", it decided it was time for the UN Security Council to give up some of what little remains of outside-world leverage in Iraq, including a formal termination of the oil-for-food programme and restrictions relating to weapons of mass destruction.

At the press briefing, Zebari was asked about his future in the next government of Iraq and his reply was, "Well I'm here as the Foreign Minister of Iraq now."

A power-sharing agreement has allowed Nouri al-Maliki a crack at forming the government. He needs to nominate cabinet minister and get Parliament to vote in his nominees and he has eight days left to do that. There are a few tiny cracks emerging as the clock ticks. First up, the Kurds. Over the weekend, KRG president Massoud Barzani spoke of Kurdish independence. Some feigned shock. Hiwa Osman (Rudaw) explores the remarks and context today:

Once again, the people of Kurdistan have realized that neither the media nor those who raised a brouhaha over President Barzani's statement about self-determination seem to have understood or want to understand what the new Iraq is about.
Barzani has been under fire for publicly stating that Kurds have a right to self-determination, an argument that is not new. He was simply repeating a long-held Kurdish position on self-determination.
This should not have shocked anyone -- but the exaggerated, critical response to Barzani's statement shows that the new reality of Iraq is not accepted by everyone.

Again, this was news when it happened and remains news now. Barzani's party (KDP) won in the July 2009 elections, destroyed Jalal Talabani's party (PUK), due to the fact that Barzani knows not to call Kurdish independence a "dream" that won't and can't come true. It was a signal to Kurds in Iraq and across the globe and it's part of the leveraging that the US press is ignoring but is going on currently as Barzani attempts to play maybe-we-walk to force Nouri to make additional concessions to the Kurds or risk tanking his shot at a second term as prime minister.

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"The children, the stalemate, the deals"
"Justice Dept sues city and state"
"I Hate The War"
"Little Miss Bully Boy"
"Fancy Mac & Cheese in the Kitchen"
"This is a good thing?"
"Wasted hours"
"The Cult of St. Barack"
"The creators feign innocence"
"Ishameal and other bad things"
"ugh"
"re-election?"
"They're trying to scare me to death!"
"One thing they deserve credit for"
"Blake Edwards"
"Christmas and the FDA"
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
"Barry and his groupies"
"Collapse and Joan Rivers: A Piece Of Work"
"Barack and the groupies"
"Peace"
"Hulu"
"The stalemate"
"THIS JUST IN! THE CULT GOES ON!"
"The cult can't stand on their own"

THIS JUST IN! THE CULT GOES ON!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE


THEY HAVE TO LEARN TO BEG BEFORE THEY CAN DEMAND . . . APPARENTLY.


FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Last night on WBAI, Joy of Resistance (available in the WBAI archives for 89 days from today) found host Fran Luck addressing the topic of "Swedish and US rape laws and the current wave of misogny that has surfaced in response to rape allegations against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange" with attorney Jill Filipovic. Excerpt:

Fran Luck: We're going to be looking at some of the aspects that haven't been discussed very much, certainly in the leftist media, about -- or in the right wing media, only in the feminist media -- about some of the kind of side effects of the rape accusations against Julian Assange that have kind of brought up huge amounts -- almost dust clouds -- of misogyny that, amazing, has been all over the internet. And we're going to look at that and we're also going to look at Swedish law on rape with Jill who is a feminist lawyer as well as being a blogger for Feministe. I was first alerted to this when I began to see these huge amounts of just absolutely evil posts calling, oh, God, talking about women as just these revenge motivated monsters, acting out of jealousy, all of the tropes, everything that women in court rooms have to confront when they are accusing men of rape, okay, their characters are defamed, etc. Now my position on this whole thing is that I don't know what happened. I don't know if Assange is guilty of these charges, I don't know that he is not. I know many people feel the circumstances are suspicious and I agree with that. I also am very much rooting for WikiLeaks and I think what they're doing is absolutely marvelous for the world. However, you know, that doesn't mean that their founder is a wonderful person. We don't know. He may be wonderful in some aspects and not in others. I think we need to keep an open mind to both sides. I certainly am not going to dismiss any rape allegations by any woman. So, Jill, what's your take on this?

Jill Filipovic: Well I think that's right. I think that part of the problem with the Julian Assange accusations is that there's become such a cult of personality around Assange himself that he's now so tied to the WikiLeaks project that any criticism of him at all is seen as somehow feeding into this right-wing target that's been painted on his back. You know, I think we can all agree Assange is under fire and he is in a very difficult situation and he is heading up what I believe is a very valuable project. We can believe that and also realize that life is complicated and he can head up a very valuable project and also potentially have done some very bad and illegal things. We can also withhold judgment on whether or not he's guilty. And, at the same time, we can withhold judgment on whether or not the women who have accused him of rape are just making up their accusations.

Fran Luck: Mm-hmm. I know the lawyer for the two woman has said his clients have been assaulted twice. "First physically, before being sacrificed to a malevolent online attack." And the women were having a very tough time and we know one of them has now fled which has some people saying, 'Well the charges weren't real, that proves it." And, you know, as a feminist I can understand caving under that kind of pressure, that kind of assault. Another target has been the government of Sweden and the laws of Sweden. There's been a lot of misrepresentation. I mean, all over the internet, there are posts that say: 'Oh! A man can be arrested for not wearing a condom in Sweden.' Which is also very funny, right? Tell us why.

Jill Filipovic: Right. I mean that is such an incredible mischaracterization. You know, what I think has happened, there's been a series of, I think, over-reliance on statements made by Julian Assange's criminal defense attorneys. I believe they're the ones who first used that phrase "sex by surprise" which isn't actually a crime in Sweden, isn't a legal term in Sweden. A lot of the reporting on it is centered around one tabloid, Daily Mail article that used the "sex by surprise" term and that also basically said that these accusations are about a broken condom and a lady who was mad because a condom broke when, if you actually read what the Swedish prosecutors have said in public -- which isn't a whole lot, but they've made the charges pretty clear, is that one of the women says that she was physically held down during sex and Assange also refused to wear a condom. And the second woman says that Assange had sex with her without a condom while she was asleep. That's very different than: The condom broke and we all agreed we would just keep going and the next morning I have -- what a right-wing blogger called --'buyer's remorse' and so I'm going to report this man for rape. These are crimes that involve physical force, that involve lack of consent, that are serious crimes and that would be considered crimes -- that would be considered sex crimes and sexual assault in place other than Sweden which has been sort of painted as the lefty feminist out of control country when in fact their rape laws are entirely reasonable.

Fran Luck: Why don't you talk about their rape laws and how they differ from US rape laws.

Jill Filipovic: Sure. I'm not an expert in Swedish rape laws so I don't want to put forth the idea that I'm issuing some sort of expert Swedish opinion here. But I have read the Swedish penal code and I have been doing a good deal of reading of how rape is treated in Sweden and, you know, it's clear that in Sweden they have what would sort of be our first degree rape law which is forceful sexual intercourse and then they also have a law that covers sexual coercion. So a law that basically says if there's a lack of consent, if sex is coerced, then that's a sex crime. And I think that is sort of what fits into a lot of what we've been talking about here in the Assange case which is that one of the accusers has said that the incident started out consensually and that at some point consent was withdrawn and Assange didn't stop. When you actually think about how that plays out, if you're having sex with someone consensually and then you say "No stop" because the condom broke or because it hurts or because something just went wrong, most people are going to stop at that point. The only person that's not going to stop at that point really is going to be a rapist. And it's not such an out there thought that consent should be able to be withdrawn at any point during sex. The idea that consent can be withdrawn -- even after sex has commenced -- is not the law across the United States. It's the law in some states, it's not the law in others. In a lot of states, it's very unclear whether or not you can withdraw consent. You know, in the US, we really hang a lot on the idea of force when it comes to rape and sexual assault.

Fran Luck: In our laws.

Jill Filipovic: In our laws. And I think in our culture as well. But legally we pin a lot on this force issue and the way that consent tends to be used in rape trials and in rape cases is with the defendant saying 'well she consented' as a defense. You don't see a lot of folks being prosecuted based on the idea that the woman did not consent. Instead, what you see is you see the prosecution focusing on the force issue, you know, whether or not there was violence involved, how much, how much force was used, how much force you can prove. You know, there aren't -- The idea of consent and a lack of consent translates into assault is just not really part of American legal culture which I think has led to a lot of confusion and, I think, a lot of the derision of Swedish laws.

Fran Luck: Mmm-hmm. What's the basic philosophical difference between basing your rape laws on lack of consent versus force?

Jill Filipovic: I think the basic philosophical difference is how you view sex versus how you view crimes and violence. As someone who is a big proponent of a "Yes Mean Yes" model of consent -- affirmative consent -- my view is that sex is something that should be fun for everyone involved. That sex is great. And people should like it. And they should have fun with it. And, you know, at the point where you are creating sexual assault laws that don't just say any sex without consent isn't assault but instead say, "Eh, if you don't consent that's maybe not assault. You have to physically do violence to someone, you have to hold someone down, you have to hit them, you have to punch them, you have to threaten them with a weapon and only then are we going to say that you broke a law, to me, is a really sexually unhealthy way to view the world, to view sex." And I think that a much better model and a much clearer model for all of us would assume that sex is something that shared, something positive. And as much as I hate to compare women's bodies to objects, you know if I leave a hundred dollar bills out on my table it doesn't mean that just because you're in my house you get to take that and walk away and then claim that because I didn't say that you couldn't have it, that I gave it to you. It's a little bit of an icky metaphor.

Fran Luck: So-so here we are with Sweden being just vilified and being seen by many misogynist men as home of these crazed radical feminists who -- which another wonderful term, I think --

Jill Filipovic: "Leftist, atrocious sluts" is what one blog post call them.

Fran Luck: Oh, okay. Yeah, we have some examples. You know, here's one. "She is one" -- I guess they're talking about one of the rape accusers, "She is one of the many Swedish women who advocate using false rape charges in the name of gender equality. In other words, she's a complete raving lunatic and should be" I can't say this, something-"slapped and subsequently put in jail." And in another one, one of these women is called a psychotic bitch and Sweden is a" another word I can't say, a word that goes with the word "whipped." What you're saying when a woman is dominating a man, that it's that kind of country. So this is all over the internet and in reality there laws are really -- should be -- they should be honored because they are kind of advanced. So I wanted to -- I did want to talk about that.

Again, for those who can enjoy online streaming, the episode is available in the WBAI archives for 89 days. Fran's other guests were Susan J. Douglas, Lu Baily and Amanda Marcotte. The next installment of Joy of Resistance will air January 5th. Trina caught the broadcast and noted, "On The Issues magazine was mentioned repeatedly thoughout the show so I'm giving a link to that in case listening/streaming audio doesn't work for you (due to equipment issues or hearing issues) and you can read a number of strong articles including a few by some of the guests."

Henry Chu (Los Angeles Times) reports, "After nine days in jail, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was granted bail Thursday in a politically charged case concerning alleged sex crimes in Sweden. [. . .] But he must surrender his passport, submit to monitoring by an electronic tag, abide by a curfew and report to the police daily." BBC News adds he will be staying at the home of Vaughan Smith. BBC News' Maddy Savage reported on the day for PRI's The Takeaway: "Dramatic scenes in the last few minutes as supporters outside the court are cheering and screaming in joy at the decision. What happened here is that the decision to grant Julian Assange bail has been upheld following an appeal by prosecutors and this means that he should be able to leave jail shortly". Al Jazeera quotes Assange stating, "I hope to continue my work and continue to protest my innocence in this matter and to reveal as we get it, which we have not yet, the evidence from these allegations." Generally speaking, a defendent sees evidence during a trial.

At The Atlantic, David Samuels writes, "Julian Assange and Pfc Bradley Manning have done a huge public service by making hundreds of thousands of classified U.S. government documents available on Wikileaks -- and, predictably, no one is grateful. Manning, a former army intelligence analyst in Iraq, faces up to 52 years in prison. [. . .] It is dispiriting and upsetting for anyone who cares about the American tradition of a free press to see Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton and Robert Gibbs turn into H.R. Haldeman, John Erlichman and John Dean." You know what? It is dispiriting and upsetting for anyone who cares about the American tradition of innocent until proven guilty to see David Samuels convict Bradley Manning.

Monday April 5th, WikiLeaks released US military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7th, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported in August that Manning had been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring classified information to his personal computer between November and May and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of classified information." Manning has been convicted in the public square despite the fact that he's been convicted in no state and has made no public statements -- despite any claims otherwise, he has made no public statements. Manning is now at Quantico in Virginia, under military lock and key and still not allowed to speak to the press. As Daniel Ellsberg reminded from the stage in Oakland last September, "We don't know all the facts." But we know, as Ellsberg pointed out, that the US military is attempting to prosecute Bradley. Paul Courson (CNN) notes Bradley is a suspect and, "He has not admitted guilt in either incident, his supporters say." Cameron Joseph (National Journal) reports that Daniel Ellsberg was at the White House today "chained to its snowy gates as part of a protest organized by Veterans for Peace [. . .] Ellsberg was one of dozens arrested, the Associated Press reported." David Jackson (USA Today) explains, "It's cold and snowy in Washington, D.C., but that didn't stop protestors from showing up at the White House today to demonstrate against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Police appeared to arrest an unknown number of protestors as they sought to chain themselves to the White House fence." UPI offers a photo essay of the protest by Kevin Dietsch. David Swanson's War Is A Crime offers video of the protest. Paul Courson (CNN) states 131 is the number of activists arrested and cites US Park Police spokesperson David Schlosser as the source for that number. At Stop These Wars (umbrella group for the various groups and individuals organizing the action) it's noted, "131 veterans and others were arrested December 16 in front of the White House. Preliminary gallery of photos here. More to come."

.

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Drowning, stalemate, action"
"The wounded, the fallen"
"Desperate Housewives"
"One for the double X chromosome"
"One more reason Michael Moore sucks"
"christmas chores "
"NPR improves"
"Music"
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
"Poor little Naomi"
"Websites and refresh"
"The stalemate"
"He makes sure GE's happy"
"THIS JUST IN! BARRY O THE COMPANY MAN!"