War on Terror: Gitmo JAG attacks legal process

Have you noticed how often we must rely on the BBC, The Guardian, The Economist, The Independent UK, foreign language papers, and, domestically, the McClatchy chain to do the reporting not being done by the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post and the "news" magazines, let alone the networks and CNN? As of this posting, this story from the Independent's Sunday edition had been picked up by dozens of blogs and a few alternative media sites, but not by a single major American media outlet. - JG

Guantanamo military lawyer breaks ranks to condemn 'unconscionable' detention

by Leonard Doyle in Washington (The Independent UK, 2007-1027)

An American military lawyer and veteran of dozens of secret Guantanamo tribunals has made a devastating attack on the legal process for determining whether Guantanamo prisoners are "enemy combatants".

The whistleblower, an army major inside the military court system which the United States has established at Guantanamo Bay, has described the detention of one prisoner, a hospital administrator from Sudan, as "unconscionable".

His critique will be the centrepiece of a hearing on 5 December before the US Supreme Court when another attempt is made to shut the prison down. So nervous is the Bush administration of the latest attack – and another Supreme Court ruling against it – that it is preparing a whole new system of military courts to deal with those still imprisoned.

The rest of the story: The Independent UK

FEMA Meets the Press, Which Happens to Be . . . FEMA

by Al Kamen (The Washington Post, 2007-10-26)

FEMA has truly learned the lessons of Katrina. Even its handling of the media has improved dramatically. For example, as the California wildfires raged Tuesday, Vice Adm. Harvey E. Johnson, the deputy administrator, had a 1 p.m. news briefing.

Reporters were given only 15 minutes' notice of the briefing, making it unlikely many could show up at FEMA's Southwest D.C. offices.

They were given an 800 number to call in, though it was a "listen only" line, the notice said -- no questions. Parts of the briefing were carried live on Fox News (see the Fox News video of the news conference carried on the Think Progress website), MSNBC and other outlets.

Johnson stood behind a lectern and began with an overview before saying he would take a few questions. The first questions were about the "commodities" being shipped to Southern California and how officials are dealing with people who refuse to evacuate. He responded eloquently.

He was apparently quite familiar with the reporters - in one case, he appears to say "Mike" and points to a reporter - and was asked an oddly in-house question about "what it means to have an emergency declaration as opposed to a major disaster declaration" signed by the president. He once again explained smoothly.

FEMA press secretary Aaron Walker interrupted at one point to caution he'd allow just "two more questions." Later, he called for a "last question."

"Are you happy with FEMA's response so far?" a reporter asked. Another asked about "lessons learned from Katrina."

"I'm very happy with FEMA's response so far," Johnson said, hailing "a very smoothly, very efficiently performing team."

"And so I think what you're really seeing here is the benefit of experience, the benefit of good leadership and the benefit of good partnership," Johnson said, "none of which were present in Katrina." (Wasn't Michael Chertoff DHS chief then?) Very smooth, very professional. But something didn't seem right. The reporters were lobbing too many softballs. No one asked about trailers with formaldehyde for those made homeless by the fires. And the media seemed to be giving Johnson all day to wax on and on about FEMA's greatness.

Of course, that could be because the questions were asked by FEMA staffers playing reporters.

The rest of the story: The Washington Post

Official Lies: State Department Coverup on Blackwater Revealed

Officials balked on '05 Blackwater inquiry

State Department e-mails obtained by ABC News discuss how to deflect a Times reporter's questions about a civilian shooting death.

by T. Christian Miller (Los Angeles Times, 2007-19-26)

Even as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice defended her department's oversight of private security contractors, new evidence surfaced Thursday that the U.S. sought to conceal details of Blackwater shootings of Iraqi civilians more than two years ago.

In one instance, internal e-mails show that State Department officials tried to deflect a 2005 Los Angeles Times inquiry into an alleged killing of an Iraqi civilian by Blackwater guards.

"Give [the Los Angeles Times] what we can and then dump the rest on Blackwater," one State Department official wrote to another in the e-mails, which were obtained by ABC News. "We can't win this one."

One department official taking part in a chain of e-mails noted that the "findings of the investigation are to remain off-limits to the reporter." Another recommended that there be no mention of the existence of a criminal investigation since such a reference would "raise questions and issues."

The rest of the story: The Los Angeles Times

Essay: Journalism and its discontents

Ninety years after Walter Lippmann first railed against the complicity of the media in wartime propaganda, we're back at ground zero.

by Sidney Blumenthal (Salon, 2007-10-25)

Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) was the most influential American journalist of the 20th century. Born into one of the German-Jewish "Our Crowd" families of New York City, he began his career as a cub reporter for Lincoln Steffens, the crusading investigative journalist, then became one of the original editors of the New Republic, and was recruited to write speeches for President Woodrow Wilson and help formulate his plan to make the world "safe for democracy," the Fourteen Points. In the 1920s, Lippmann became editorial director of the New York World, then a major daily newspaper with a Democratic orientation. When it folded, the New York Herald Tribune offered him a column, which, with the Washington Post, served as his journalistic base for almost 50 years.

Lippmann wrote books on philosophy, politics, foreign policy and economics. In one of them, "The Cold War," he early defined the struggle between the United States and the Soviet Union while offering penetrating criticism of U.S. policy as a "strategic monstrosity" that would lead to "recruiting, subsidizing and supporting a heterogeneous array of satellites, clients, dependents and puppets," inevitably forcing poor choices of having to either "disown our puppets, which would be tantamount to appeasement and defeat and the loss of face," or else back them "at an incalculable cost on an unintended, unforeseen and perhaps undesirable issue." Lippmann's prophetic warning was realized in the Vietnam War, which he opposed at considerable cost to his personal and political relationships. (Anyone interested in Lippmann, or American politics, should read Ronald Steel's magisterial biography, "Walter Lippmann and the American Century.")

Among his varied roles, Lippmann was the original and most prescient analyst of the modern media. His disillusioning experience in World War I prompted the first of three books on the subject, "Liberty and the News," followed in rapid succession by "Public Opinion" and "The Phantom Public." In them Lippmann deconstructed the distortions and lies of government propaganda eagerly transmitted by a jingoist press corps, the "manufacture of consent" and the creation of "stereotypes" projected as false reality.

-- from the afterword to a new edition of Walter Lippman's "Liberty and the News" to be reissued this month by Princeton University Press.

The rest of the story: Salon

From Old to New Media: Blog Begets Publishing House

by Anne Trubek (Wired, 2007-10-24)

A small press, growing? How could it be?

Against market trends, Dzanc Books is a small publisher poised to succeed, hiring staff and expanding quickly. And that may be because it sprouted from a blog rather than a traditional printing press, and it is certainly web-savvy.

Since its launch in 2006, Dzanc Books has acquired other presses, signed numerous authors, launched an education program and started an award -- the Dzanc Prize -- to encourage writers to undertake community literacy projects.

Dzanc is growing at a time when there are few independent publishers left, and the remaining ones were hit hard by the recent bankruptcy of Advanced Marketing Services, a major distributor.

"We do not intend to fall into the potholes that sent the hubcaps of our predecessors flying," says co-founder Steve Gillis. "We are not caught in the old template of how publishing has been done."

Director Dan Wickett has gone from amateur blogger to publisher, reversing the traditional flow from old to new media.

Wickett, a quality-control manager and auto-parts supplier, wrote a book review in 2000 and sent it to some cousins, an uncle and a few friends. They liked it and asked for more. In 2005, Wickett started a literary blog, the Emerging Writers Network, which now counts 2,100 subscribers.

The rest of the story: Wired

Globalization: How Capitalism Is Killing Democracy

by Robert B. Reich (Foreign Policy, September/October 2007)

Free markets were supposed to lead to free societies. Instead, today’s supercharged global economy is eroding the power of the people in democracies around the globe. Welcome to a world where the bottom line trumps the common good and government takes a back seat to big business.

It was supposed to be a match made in heaven. Capitalism and democracy, we’ve long been told, are the twin ideological pillars capable of bringing unprecedented prosperity and freedom to the world. In recent decades, the duo has shared a common ascent. By almost any measure, global capitalism is triumphant. Most nations around the world are today part of a single, integrated, and turbocharged global market. Democracy has enjoyed a similar renaissance. Three decades ago, a third of the world’s nations held free elections; today, nearly two thirds do.

Conventional wisdom holds that where either capitalism or democracy flourishes, the other must soon follow. Yet today, their fortunes are beginning to diverge. Capitalism, long sold as the yin to democracy’s yang, is thriving, while democracy is struggling to keep up. China, poised to become the world’s third largest capitalist nation this year after the United States and Japan, has embraced market freedom, but not political freedom. Many economically successful nations—from Russia to Mexico—are democracies in name only. They are encumbered by the same problems that have hobbled American democracy in recent years, allowing corporations and elites buoyed by runaway economic success to undermine the government’s capacity to respond to citizens’ concerns.

The rest of the story: Foreign Policy

The War: U.N. Report on Iraq Details An 'Ever-Deepening' Crisis

by Joshua Partlow and Colum Lynch (Washington Post, 2007-10-12)

BAGHDAD, Oct. 11 -- A U.N. report issued Thursday outlined an "ever-deepening humanitarian crisis" in Iraq, with thousands of people driven from their homes each month, ongoing indiscriminate killings and "routine torture" in Iraqi prisons....

The assessment by the U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq, which covered a three-month period ending June 30, found that civilians were suffering "devastating consequences" from violence across the country. It documented more than 100 civilians allegedly killed by U.S.-led forces during airstrikes or raids.

The report described Iraq in more dire terms than last month's congressional testimony from top U.S. military and embassy officials, which stressed improvements in the security situation.

"The killings are still taking place, the torture is still being reported, the due process issues are still unresolved," said Ivana Vuco, a U.N. human rights officer in Baghdad.

The rest of the story: The Washington Post

Congress: Another cave-in on civil liberties in the works

Democrats Seem Ready to Extend Wiretap Powers

by Eric Lichtblau and Carl Hulse (New York Times, 2007-10-09)

WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 — Two months after insisting that they would roll back broad eavesdropping powers won by the Bush administration, Democrats in Congress appear ready to make concessions that could extend some crucial powers given to the National Security Agency.

Administration officials say they are confident they will win approval of the broadened authority that they secured temporarily in August as Congress rushed toward recess. Some Democratic officials concede that they may not come up with enough votes to stop approval.

As the debate over the eavesdropping powers of the National Security Agency begins anew this week, the emerging measures reflect the reality confronting the Democrats.

Although willing to oppose the White House on the Iraq war, they remain nervous that they will be called soft on terrorism if they insist on strict curbs on gathering intelligence.

A Democratic bill to be proposed on Tuesday in the House would maintain for several years the type of broad, blanket authority for N.S.A eavesdropping that the administration secured in August for six months.

In an acknowledgment of concerns over civil liberties, the bill would require a more active role by the special foreign intelligence court that oversees the interception of foreign-based communications by the security agency.

A competing proposal in the Senate, still being drafted, may be even closer in line with the administration plan, with the possibility of including retroactive immunity for telecommunications utilities that participated in the once-secret program to eavesdrop without court warrants.

The rest of the story: The New York Times

Iraq: Military returns tape it took from AP

BAGHDAD (AP) - The U.S. military returned a videotape and digital camera memory card Monday that American soldiers had seized last week from an AP Television News cameraman.

The tape and card were taken without explanation from Ayad M. Abd Ali at the scene of an insurgent attack against the Polish ambassador in Baghdad. The ambassador, Gen. Edward Pietrzyk, suffered burns and was evacuated by helicopter.

After photographing the attack's aftermath and the rescue activities, Abd Ali was detained by U.S. troops for about 40 minutes in spite of having shown the soldiers a valid U.S.-issued press credential and identification.

He says he was never told why he was handcuffed, blindfolded and put in a Humvee, or why the tape and film were taken. Subsequent contact with the U.S. military also has failed to produce a clear explanation for the military's actions.

Other news organizations shot video and still photographs of the scene and had no apparent difficulty.

The rest of the story: Yahoo! News

Iraq: As War Dragged On, Coverage Tone Weighed Heavily on Anchors (The Washington Post)

by Howard Kurtz (The Washington Post, 2007-10-08)

Charlie Gibson is a product of the Vietnam War era. When he was a television reporter in Lynchburg, Va., he had driven to Washington on weekends to march in antiwar demonstrations. And he had lost friends in that jungle war.

Now Gibson had friends whose sons were dying in Iraq. His thoughts kept returning to one central question: When you commit kids to war, what are they fighting for? What was the mission in Iraq? How could a family say that the war was worth little Johnny's well-being?

The ABC anchor was obsessed with this point. If you were president, and you decided to go to war, was there a calculus in your mind, that the goal was worth so many American lives? After all, your generals would tell you that X number were likely to die. What was the acceptable trade-off? Gibson's threshold would be one: Was the war worth one life?

As the U.S. occupation of Iraq stretched into its fourth bloody year, the media coverage was turning increasingly negative, and the three evening news anchors constantly agonized over how to deal with the conflict.

Their newscasts had become a nightly tableau of death and destruction, and whether that was an accurate picture of Iraq had become a matter of fierce political debate. Certainly the constant plague of suicide bombs, explosive devices, sniper fire and, occasionally, the massacre of large numbers of civilians played into television's need for dramatic events and arresting visuals. Certainly, by 2006 it was easier for the anchors and correspondents to offer a skeptical vision of the war, now that a majority of the country disapproved of the conflict, than in the heady days after the toppling of Saddam Hussein seemed to strike a blow for democracy in the Middle East. By training their powerful spotlight on the chaos gripping Iraq, the anchors were arguably contributing to the political downfall of a president who had seemed to be riding high when he won his second term.

Through the routine decisions of daily journalism -- how prominently to play a story, what pictures to use, what voices to include -- the newscasts were sending an unmistakable message. And the message was that George W. Bush's war was a debacle. Administration officials regularly complained about the coverage as unduly negative, but to little avail. Other news organizations chronicled the deteriorating situation as well, but with a combined 25 million viewers, the evening newscasts had the biggest megaphone.

The rest of the story: The Washington Post

This article is adapted from the book "Reality Show: Inside the Last Great Television News War" by Howard Kurtz, Free Press, New York, ©2007.

Iraq: Return of the Body Count

Body count isn't best way to rate war result

The Department of Defense has for the first time revealed statistics on the numbers of Iraqi insurgents killed since the U.S. invasion. Previously, the Bush administration resisted such requests, the secretiveness of this White House reinforced by a reluctance to highlight a very controversial approach from the Vietnam period. The about-face came in response to a request from USA Today.

On the surface, the data seems to provide evidence of progress. A total of 19,429 insurgents are reported killed, compared with 3,800 Americans and 300 others, largely British. In releasing the figures, the military stressed that 4,882 insurgents have been killed this year, a 25 percent increase over last year....

But there is a more subtle and profound problem with the body-count approach. During Vietnam, U.S. Army iconoclasts such as Col. John Paul Vann argued that the McNamara measures were based on false premises. Given the enormous scale of American firepower, increasing body and weapons totals simply meant the enemy was growing in numbers. There were more targets to kill.

The rest of the story: San Jose Mercury News

Iraq: Iraqis Say Basra Quieter After British Troop Pullout

by Aref Mohammed (Reuters UK, 2007-10-01)

Basra, Iraq - Residents of Iraq's southern city of Basra have begun strolling riverfront streets again after four years of fear, their city much quieter since British troops withdrew from the grand Saddam Hussein-era Basra Palace.

Political assassinations and sectarian violence continue, some city officials say, but on a much smaller scale than at any time since British troops moved into the city after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

Mortar rounds, rockets and small arms fire crashed almost daily into the palace, making life hazardous for British and Iraqis alike in Iraq's second-largest city. To many Basrans the withdrawal of the British a month ago removed a proven target.

"The situation these days is better. We were living in hell ... the area is calm since their withdrawal," said housewife Khairiya Salman, who lives near the palace.

The rest of the story: Reuters