Sunday, April 28, 2013
Saturday, April 27, 2013
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
NH State Rep. Stella Tremblay Says Bombings May Be “Black Ops” Government Job
New Hampshire State Representative Stella Tremblay has recently suggested that the Boston Bombings could be a “Black Ops” government job, and says that people should think for themselves in coming to conclusions.
New Hampshire State Rep. Stella Tremblay
Intellihub.com
April 24, 2013
Yesterday we reported that, in so many words, Obama told the public not to come to any conclusions about the Boston bombings until the government has put together their official version of events.
Just hours before Obama made that speech a politician in New Hampshire was in the news for saying the exact opposite, even suggesting that this terrorist attack could be an inside job.
New Hampshire State Rep. Stella Tremblay is calling for answers about whether the American government was involved in detonating explosives at the Boston Marathon last week, killing three people and wounding more than 170 others. In an interview with Foster’s Daily Democrat Tuesday, Tremblay said she can’t rule out the possibility the government was involved in carrying out the bombings.
In a comment posted on Facebook on April 19 at 10:24 a.m., Tremblay wrote that Monday’s attack occurred “Top Down, Bottom UP.”
“The Boston Marathon was a Black Ops ‘terrorist’ attack,” Tremblay wrote in a message to conservative commentator Glenn Beck. “One suspect killed, the other one will be too before they even have a chance to speak. Drones and now ‘terrorist’ attacks by our own Government. Sad day, but a ‘wake up’ to all of us. First there was a ‘suspect’ then there wasnt.”
Tremblay also posted a link to a video hosted on YouTube, titled “PROOF! Boston Marathon Bombing is Staged Terror Attack.”
“There’s just too many things going on that, to me, doesn’t make any sense,” Tremblay said.
Intellihub.com
NH State Rep. Stella Tremblay Says Bombings May Be “Black Ops” Government Job
‘Boston Strong’: Marching in Lockstep with the Police State
“Of all the tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.” -C.S. Lewis
Caught up in the televised drama of a military-style manhunt for the suspects in the Boston Marathon explosion, most Americans fail to realize that the world around them has been suddenly and jarringly shifted off its axis, that axis being the U.S. Constitution.
For those like myself who have studied emerging police states, the sight of a city placed under martial law—its citizens under house arrest (officials used the Orwellian phrase “shelter in place” to describe the mandatory lockdown), military-style helicopters equipped with thermal imaging devices buzzing the skies, tanks and armored vehicles on the streets, and snipers perched on rooftops, while thousands of black-garbed police swarmed the streets and SWAT teams carried out house-to-house searches in search of two young and seemingly unlikely bombing suspects—leaves us in a growing state of unease.
Mind you, these are no longer warning signs of a steadily encroaching police state. The police state has arrived.
Equally unnerving is the ease with which Americans welcomed the city-wide lockdown, the routine invasion of their privacy, and the dismantling of every constitutional right intended to serve as a bulwark against government abuses. Watching it unfold, I couldn’t help but think of Nazi Field Marshal Hermann Goering’s remarks during the Nuremberg trials. As Goering noted:
It is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.
As the events in Boston have made clear, it does indeed work the same in every country. The same propaganda and police state tactics that worked for Adolf Hitler 80 years ago continue to be employed with great success in a post-9/11 America.
Whatever the threat to so-called security—whether it’s rumored weapons of mass destruction, school shootings, or alleged acts of terrorism—it doesn’t take much for the American people to march in lockstep with the government’s dictates, even if it means submitting to martial law, having their homes searched, and being stripped of one’s constitutional rights at a moment’s notice.
As journalist Andrew O’Hehir observes in Salon:
In America after 9/11, we made a deal with the devil, or with Dick Cheney, which is much the same thing. We agreed to give up most of our enumerated rights and civil liberties (except for the sacrosanct Second Amendment, of course) in exchange for a lot of hyper-patriotic tough talk, the promise of “security” and the freedom to go on sitting on our asses and consuming whatever the hell we wanted to. Don’t look the other way and tell me that you signed a petition or voted for John Kerry or whatever. The fact is that whatever dignified private opinions you and I may hold, we did not do enough to stop it, and our constitutional rights are now deemed to be partial or provisional rather than absolute, do not necessarily apply to everyone, and can be revoked by the government at any time.
Particularly disheartening is the fact that Americans, consumed with the need for vengeance, seem even less concerned about protecting the rights of others, especially if those “others” happen to be of a different skin color or nationality. The public response to the manhunt, capture and subsequent treatment of brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is merely the latest example of America’s xenophobic mindset, which was also a driving force behind the roundup and detention of hundreds of Arab, South Asian and Muslim men following 9/11, internment camps that housed more than 18,000 people of Japanese ancestry during World War II, and the arrest and deportation of thousands of “radical” noncitizens during America’s first Red Scare.
Moreover, there has been little outcry over the Obama administration’s decision to deny 19-year-old U.S. citizen Dzhokhar Tsarnaev his due process rights and treat him as an enemy combatant, first off by interrogating him without reading him his Miranda rights (“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law…”).
Presently, under the public safety exception to the Miranda rule, if law enforcement agents believe a suspect has information that might reduce a substantial threat, they can wait to give the Miranda warning. For years now, however, the Obama administration has been lobbying to see this exception extended to all cases involving so-called terror suspects, including American citizens. Tsarnaev’s case may prove to be the game-changer. Yet as journalist Emily Bazelon points out for Slate: “Why should I care that no one’s reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev his Miranda rights? When the law gets bent out of shape for him, it’s easier to bend out of shape for the rest of us.”
The U.S. Supreme Court rightly recognized in its 1966 ruling in Miranda v. Arizona that police officers must advise a suspect of his/her civil rights once the suspect has been taken into custody, because the police can and often do take advantage of the fact that most Americans don’t know their rights. There have been few exceptions to the Miranda rule over the last 40 years or so, and with good reason. However, if the Obama administration is allowed to scale back the Miranda rule, especially as it applies to U.S. citizens, it would be yet another dangerous expansion of government power at the expense of citizens’ civil rights.
This continual undermining of the rules that protect civil liberties, not to mention the incessant rush to judgment by politicians, members of the media and the public, will inevitably have far-reaching consequences on a populace that not only remains ignorant about their rights but is inclined to sacrifice their liberties for phantom promises of safety.
Moments after taking Tsarnaev into custody, the Boston Police Dept. tweeted “CAPTURED!!! The hunt is over. The search is done. The terror is over. And justice has won.” Yet with Tsarnaev and his brother having been charged, tried and convicted by the government, the media and the police—all without ever having stepped foot inside a courtroom—it remains to be seen whether justice has indeed won.
The lesson for the rest of us is this: once a free people allows the government to make inroads into their freedoms or uses those same freedoms as bargaining chips for security, it quickly becomes a slippery slope to outright tyranny. And it doesn’t really matter whether it’s a Democrat or a Republican at the helm, because the bureaucratic mindset on both sides of the aisle now seems to embody the same philosophy of authoritarian government. Increasingly, those on the left who once hailed Barack Obama as the antidote for restoring the numerous civil liberties that were lost or undermined as a result of Bush-era policies are finding themselves forced to acknowledge that threats to civil liberties are worse under Obama.
Clearly, the outlook for civil liberties under Obama grows bleaker by the day, from his embrace of indefinite detention for U.S. citizens and drone kill lists to warrantless surveillance of phone, email and internet communications, and prosecutions of government whistleblowers. Most recently, capitalizing on the nation’s heightened emotions, confusion and fear, government officials used the Boston Marathon tragedy as a means of extending the reach of the police state, starting with the House of Representatives’ overwhelming passage of the controversial Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), which opens the door to greater internet surveillance by the government.
These troubling developments are the outward manifestations of an inner, philosophical shift underway in how the government views not only the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but “we the people,” as well. What this reflects is a move away from a government bound by the rule of law to one that seeks total control through the imposition of its own self-serving laws on the populace.
All the while, the American people remain largely oblivious to the looming threats to their freedoms, eager to be persuaded that the government can solve the problems that plague us—whether it be terrorism, an economic depression, an environmental disaster or even a flu epidemic. Yet having bought into the false notion that the government can ensure not only our safety but our happiness and will take care of us from cradle to grave—that is, from daycare centers to nursing homes, we have in actuality allowed ourselves to be bridled and turned into slaves at the bidding of a government that cares little for our freedoms or our happiness.
This article was originally published at The Rutherford Institute.
Read more by John W. Whitehead
- Roaches, Mosquitoes, and Birds: The Coming Micro-Drone Revolution – April 17th, 2013
- Eric Holder: If the President Does It, It’s Legal – March 22nd, 2013
- The War Against Bradley Manning – March 12th, 2013
- The Magician’s Con: Renewing FISA & NDAA Under Cover of Fiscal Cliff Debates – January 7th, 2013
- Obama’s First-Term Track Record on Civil Liberties – November 12th, 2012
‘Boston Strong’: Marching in Lockstep with the Police State
Friday, April 19, 2013
Filmmaker Robert Greenwald on "War on Whistleblowers: Free Press and the National Security State"
Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We turn now to whistleblowers and the unprecedented attack they’ve come under during the Obama administration. Evoking the Espionage Act of 1917, the administration has pressed criminal charges against no fewer than six government employees, more than all previous presidential administrations combined.
AMY GOODMAN: A new film directed by Robert Greenwald looks at four whistleblowers who had their lives practically destroyed after they went to the press with evidence of government wrongdoing. They are Michael DeKort, Thomas Drake, Franz Gayl and Thomas Tamm. In the film, Greenwald also interviews government oversight experts and investigative journalists who warn about the chilling effect prosecutions may have on potential whistleblowers and the journalists who help them. This is the trailer of the film, War on Whistleblowers: Free Press and the National Security State.
FRANZ GAYL: I had to do something. If not me, then who? I said, “This needs to be fixed.”
THOMAS DRAKE: I thought about various investigative reporters that I would try and contact.
THOMAS TAMM: Once I put the phone down, I was pretty confident that my life would never be quite the same.
MICHAEL DEKORT: I mean, at the end of the day, right, when you make a decision like this, if you’re not prepared to have the worst happen, then really don’t do it at all.
JANE MAYER: These people face a terrifying situation.
REPORTER: Thomas Drake, accused of leaking classified information. Agents raiding his home in Howard County.
THOMAS DRAKE: Eighteen agents, some of them in body armor, had been banging on our front door.
UNIDENTIFIED: Any time anyone takes a step like that, you know that they’ve probably got something important to say, because they are basically wiping away their career.
DANA PRIEST: There are close to a million people who have top-secret clearance.
MICHAEL DEKORT: The Obama administration had cracked down on whistleblowers.
WILLIAM KELLER: They have indicted more people for violating secrecy than all of the previous administrations put together.
UNIDENTIFIED: The number of people who indicated to us they wish they could talk, but they can’t, because they’re so afraid of what could happen to them, it’s a terrible thing for our democracy.
THOMAS DRAKE: So speaking truth to power is now a criminal act.
AMY GOODMAN: Some of those voices, Thomas Drake and William Keller of The New York Times, as well as Jane Mayer of The New Yorker. This is Democracy Now! The trailer of the new documentary, War on Whistleblowers is what you just watched. We’re joined now by its director, Robert Greenwald, and founder and president of Brave New Films, producer, director and activist.
Why did you make this film? You’ve looked at so many other issues. Why whistleblowers, Robert?
ROBERT GREENWALD: Well, there were a few things that came together. What we always try to do in our films is connect the dots and explore how the system is working. So we had the crackdown on whistleblowers, number one, but it wasn’t without reason. It’s very deeply connected to the growth and power of the national security state, which believes completely in secrets. So we had the whistleblowers. We had the national security state. And then we had some incredible investigative journalists being attacked, investigated, threatened, their careers at stake also. So we put all three of those together and made a film which allows people to understand what’s going on and how deeply threatening it is to us, in a kind of drip-drip way, where you don’t always see or understand what’s happening.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Bob, I want to turn to the case of Franz Gayl, a former marine. While working at the Pentagon as a science adviser for the Marine Corps, Gayl volunteered to deploy to Iraq. Upon his return, he alerted the office of the secretary of defense, and later the Congress and the media, to critical equipment shortages. These included mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles, or MRAPs. Gayl’s public outcry exposed the fact that the corps had failed to provide marines in Iraq with life-saving technologies. Yet Gayl has been the target of years of retaliatory investigations, workplace harassment, including the elimination of meaningful duties and extended suspension of his security clearances. In this clip, Gayl explains why he made the fateful decision to save lives by requesting MRAPs to replace Humvees in Iraq. Journalist Seymour Hersh is also in this clip.
FRANZ GAYL: I had to do something. If not me, then who? And if not now, then when? It was one of those situations. And I just said, “No, no, no, no. It doesn’t matter what the consequences are, personal or otherwise, right?” I said, “This needs to be fixed.”
SEYMOUR HERSH: Whistleblowers are just people who say there’s something more important here than my boss or the general or the admiral or the president.
FRANZ GAYL: The most common vehicle used was the Humvee. They were never built to withstand weapons that the insurgents were using, these IEDs.
UNIDENTIFIED: The estimates are that about a third of the casualties in Iraq were due to Humvees.
FRANZ GAYL: Hundreds of Marines were tragically lost, probably thousands maimed, unnecessarily. So I said, “Let’s replace the Humvees with what are called MRAPs, mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles.” The MRAP was bound to save lives.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: That was Franz Gayl in the clip from War on Whistleblowers: Free Press and the National Security State. Robert Greenwald, he was one of the few whistleblowers who actually was able to keep his job, where some of the others have had really terrible times after they did their exposés. Could you talk about that, as well?
ROBERT GREENWALD: Yeah. One of the things that was a common denominator with all the whistleblowers we interviewed is the terrible personal price they paid—even Franz. He was saving lives, literally saving hundreds of lives. He was fired initially. But this is where organizing makes such an incredible impact. Organizations, POGO/GAP got behind him. They worked. People called. They took action. And it really worked. It got him his job back. And it’s important to keep that in mind.
The other cases were horrific. And what is happening over and over again is the Obama administration and previous administrations are literally shooting the messengers—punishing the whistleblowers, trying to pass laws that make it harder for whistleblowers. And look, the only way we find out about the national security state is by these people coming forward.
AMY GOODMAN: Robert Greenwald, part two of this conversation, as we go through the whistleblowers, we’ll post online at democracynow.org. The new film is called War on Whistleblowers: Free Press and the National Security State.
As we wrap up, Juan, you’re headed out after tomorrow’s show to Chicago and Detroit to speak about Harvest of Empire?
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Yes, the film is premiering there at the Gene Siskel Film Center on Friday night, and I’ll be there after the 8:15 showing for a Q&A with the audience, and then at Wayne State University at noon on Saturday.
AMY GOODMAN: And we’ll put all the details at our website at democracynow.org.
Democracy Now!
Filmmaker Robert Greenwald on "War on Whistleblowers: Free Press and the National Security State"
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Filmmaker Robert Greenwald on "War on Whistleblowers: Free Press and the National Security State"
Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We turn now to whistleblowers and the unprecedented attack they’ve come under during the Obama administration. Evoking the Espionage Act of 1917, the administration has pressed criminal charges against no fewer than six government employees, more than all previous presidential administrations combined.
AMY GOODMAN: A new film directed by Robert Greenwald looks at four whistleblowers who had their lives practically destroyed after they went to the press with evidence of government wrongdoing. They are Michael DeKort, Thomas Drake, Franz Gayl and Thomas Tamm. In the film, Greenwald also interviews government oversight experts and investigative journalists who warn about the chilling effect prosecutions may have on potential whistleblowers and the journalists who help them. This is the trailer of the film, War on Whistleblowers: Free Press and the National Security State.
FRANZ GAYL: I had to do something. If not me, then who? I said, “This needs to be fixed.”
THOMAS DRAKE: I thought about various investigative reporters that I would try and contact.
THOMAS TAMM: Once I put the phone down, I was pretty confident that my life would never be quite the same.
MICHAEL DEKORT: I mean, at the end of the day, right, when you make a decision like this, if you’re not prepared to have the worst happen, then really don’t do it at all.
JANE MAYER: These people face a terrifying situation.
REPORTER: Thomas Drake, accused of leaking classified information. Agents raiding his home in Howard County.
THOMAS DRAKE: Eighteen agents, some of them in body armor, had been banging on our front door.
UNIDENTIFIED: Any time anyone takes a step like that, you know that they’ve probably got something important to say, because they are basically wiping away their career.
DANA PRIEST: There are close to a million people who have top-secret clearance.
MICHAEL DEKORT: The Obama administration had cracked down on whistleblowers.
WILLIAM KELLER: They have indicted more people for violating secrecy than all of the previous administrations put together.
UNIDENTIFIED: The number of people who indicated to us they wish they could talk, but they can’t, because they’re so afraid of what could happen to them, it’s a terrible thing for our democracy.
THOMAS DRAKE: So speaking truth to power is now a criminal act.
AMY GOODMAN: Some of those voices, Thomas Drake and William Keller of The New York Times, as well as Jane Mayer of The New Yorker. This is Democracy Now! The trailer of the new documentary, War on Whistleblowers is what you just watched. We’re joined now by its director, Robert Greenwald, and founder and president of Brave New Films, producer, director and activist.
Why did you make this film? You’ve looked at so many other issues. Why whistleblowers, Robert?
ROBERT GREENWALD: Well, there were a few things that came together. What we always try to do in our films is connect the dots and explore how the system is working. So we had the crackdown on whistleblowers, number one, but it wasn’t without reason. It’s very deeply connected to the growth and power of the national security state, which believes completely in secrets. So we had the whistleblowers. We had the national security state. And then we had some incredible investigative journalists being attacked, investigated, threatened, their careers at stake also. So we put all three of those together and made a film which allows people to understand what’s going on and how deeply threatening it is to us, in a kind of drip-drip way, where you don’t always see or understand what’s happening.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Bob, I want to turn to the case of Franz Gayl, a former marine. While working at the Pentagon as a science adviser for the Marine Corps, Gayl volunteered to deploy to Iraq. Upon his return, he alerted the office of the secretary of defense, and later the Congress and the media, to critical equipment shortages. These included mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles, or MRAPs. Gayl’s public outcry exposed the fact that the corps had failed to provide marines in Iraq with life-saving technologies. Yet Gayl has been the target of years of retaliatory investigations, workplace harassment, including the elimination of meaningful duties and extended suspension of his security clearances. In this clip, Gayl explains why he made the fateful decision to save lives by requesting MRAPs to replace Humvees in Iraq. Journalist Seymour Hersh is also in this clip.
FRANZ GAYL: I had to do something. If not me, then who? And if not now, then when? It was one of those situations. And I just said, “No, no, no, no. It doesn’t matter what the consequences are, personal or otherwise, right?” I said, “This needs to be fixed.”
SEYMOUR HERSH: Whistleblowers are just people who say there’s something more important here than my boss or the general or the admiral or the president.
FRANZ GAYL: The most common vehicle used was the Humvee. They were never built to withstand weapons that the insurgents were using, these IEDs.
UNIDENTIFIED: The estimates are that about a third of the casualties in Iraq were due to Humvees.
FRANZ GAYL: Hundreds of Marines were tragically lost, probably thousands maimed, unnecessarily. So I said, “Let’s replace the Humvees with what are called MRAPs, mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles.” The MRAP was bound to save lives.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: That was Franz Gayl in the clip from War on Whistleblowers: Free Press and the National Security State. Robert Greenwald, he was one of the few whistleblowers who actually was able to keep his job, where some of the others have had really terrible times after they did their exposés. Could you talk about that, as well?
ROBERT GREENWALD: Yeah. One of the things that was a common denominator with all the whistleblowers we interviewed is the terrible personal price they paid—even Franz. He was saving lives, literally saving hundreds of lives. He was fired initially. But this is where organizing makes such an incredible impact. Organizations, POGO/GAP got behind him. They worked. People called. They took action. And it really worked. It got him his job back. And it’s important to keep that in mind.
The other cases were horrific. And what is happening over and over again is the Obama administration and previous administrations are literally shooting the messengers—punishing the whistleblowers, trying to pass laws that make it harder for whistleblowers. And look, the only way we find out about the national security state is by these people coming forward.
AMY GOODMAN: Robert Greenwald, part two of this conversation, as we go through the whistleblowers, we’ll post online at democracynow.org. The new film is called War on Whistleblowers: Free Press and the National Security State.
As we wrap up, Juan, you’re headed out after tomorrow’s show to Chicago and Detroit to speak about Harvest of Empire?
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Yes, the film is premiering there at the Gene Siskel Film Center on Friday night, and I’ll be there after the 8:15 showing for a Q&A with the audience, and then at Wayne State University at noon on Saturday.
AMY GOODMAN: And we’ll put all the details at our website at democracynow.org.
Democracy Now!
Filmmaker Robert Greenwald on "War on Whistleblowers: Free Press and the National Security State"
Filmmaker Robert Greenwald on "War on Whistleblowers: Free Press and the National Security State"
Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We turn now to whistleblowers and the unprecedented attack they’ve come under during the Obama administration. Evoking the Espionage Act of 1917, the administration has pressed criminal charges against no fewer than six government employees, more than all previous presidential administrations combined.
AMY GOODMAN: A new film directed by Robert Greenwald looks at four whistleblowers who had their lives practically destroyed after they went to the press with evidence of government wrongdoing. They are Michael DeKort, Thomas Drake, Franz Gayl and Thomas Tamm. In the film, Greenwald also interviews government oversight experts and investigative journalists who warn about the chilling effect prosecutions may have on potential whistleblowers and the journalists who help them. This is the trailer of the film, War on Whistleblowers: Free Press and the National Security State.
FRANZ GAYL: I had to do something. If not me, then who? I said, “This needs to be fixed.”
THOMAS DRAKE: I thought about various investigative reporters that I would try and contact.
THOMAS TAMM: Once I put the phone down, I was pretty confident that my life would never be quite the same.
MICHAEL DEKORT: I mean, at the end of the day, right, when you make a decision like this, if you’re not prepared to have the worst happen, then really don’t do it at all.
JANE MAYER: These people face a terrifying situation.
REPORTER: Thomas Drake, accused of leaking classified information. Agents raiding his home in Howard County.
THOMAS DRAKE: Eighteen agents, some of them in body armor, had been banging on our front door.
UNIDENTIFIED: Any time anyone takes a step like that, you know that they’ve probably got something important to say, because they are basically wiping away their career.
DANA PRIEST: There are close to a million people who have top-secret clearance.
MICHAEL DEKORT: The Obama administration had cracked down on whistleblowers.
WILLIAM KELLER: They have indicted more people for violating secrecy than all of the previous administrations put together.
UNIDENTIFIED: The number of people who indicated to us they wish they could talk, but they can’t, because they’re so afraid of what could happen to them, it’s a terrible thing for our democracy.
THOMAS DRAKE: So speaking truth to power is now a criminal act.
AMY GOODMAN: Some of those voices, Thomas Drake and William Keller of The New York Times, as well as Jane Mayer of The New Yorker. This is Democracy Now! The trailer of the new documentary, War on Whistleblowers is what you just watched. We’re joined now by its director, Robert Greenwald, and founder and president of Brave New Films, producer, director and activist.
Why did you make this film? You’ve looked at so many other issues. Why whistleblowers, Robert?
ROBERT GREENWALD: Well, there were a few things that came together. What we always try to do in our films is connect the dots and explore how the system is working. So we had the crackdown on whistleblowers, number one, but it wasn’t without reason. It’s very deeply connected to the growth and power of the national security state, which believes completely in secrets. So we had the whistleblowers. We had the national security state. And then we had some incredible investigative journalists being attacked, investigated, threatened, their careers at stake also. So we put all three of those together and made a film which allows people to understand what’s going on and how deeply threatening it is to us, in a kind of drip-drip way, where you don’t always see or understand what’s happening.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Bob, I want to turn to the case of Franz Gayl, a former marine. While working at the Pentagon as a science adviser for the Marine Corps, Gayl volunteered to deploy to Iraq. Upon his return, he alerted the office of the secretary of defense, and later the Congress and the media, to critical equipment shortages. These included mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles, or MRAPs. Gayl’s public outcry exposed the fact that the corps had failed to provide marines in Iraq with life-saving technologies. Yet Gayl has been the target of years of retaliatory investigations, workplace harassment, including the elimination of meaningful duties and extended suspension of his security clearances. In this clip, Gayl explains why he made the fateful decision to save lives by requesting MRAPs to replace Humvees in Iraq. Journalist Seymour Hersh is also in this clip.
FRANZ GAYL: I had to do something. If not me, then who? And if not now, then when? It was one of those situations. And I just said, “No, no, no, no. It doesn’t matter what the consequences are, personal or otherwise, right?” I said, “This needs to be fixed.”
SEYMOUR HERSH: Whistleblowers are just people who say there’s something more important here than my boss or the general or the admiral or the president.
FRANZ GAYL: The most common vehicle used was the Humvee. They were never built to withstand weapons that the insurgents were using, these IEDs.
UNIDENTIFIED: The estimates are that about a third of the casualties in Iraq were due to Humvees.
FRANZ GAYL: Hundreds of Marines were tragically lost, probably thousands maimed, unnecessarily. So I said, “Let’s replace the Humvees with what are called MRAPs, mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles.” The MRAP was bound to save lives.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: That was Franz Gayl in the clip from War on Whistleblowers: Free Press and the National Security State. Robert Greenwald, he was one of the few whistleblowers who actually was able to keep his job, where some of the others have had really terrible times after they did their exposés. Could you talk about that, as well?
ROBERT GREENWALD: Yeah. One of the things that was a common denominator with all the whistleblowers we interviewed is the terrible personal price they paid—even Franz. He was saving lives, literally saving hundreds of lives. He was fired initially. But this is where organizing makes such an incredible impact. Organizations, POGO/GAP got behind him. They worked. People called. They took action. And it really worked. It got him his job back. And it’s important to keep that in mind.
The other cases were horrific. And what is happening over and over again is the Obama administration and previous administrations are literally shooting the messengers—punishing the whistleblowers, trying to pass laws that make it harder for whistleblowers. And look, the only way we find out about the national security state is by these people coming forward.
AMY GOODMAN: Robert Greenwald, part two of this conversation, as we go through the whistleblowers, we’ll post online at democracynow.org. The new film is called War on Whistleblowers: Free Press and the National Security State.
As we wrap up, Juan, you’re headed out after tomorrow’s show to Chicago and Detroit to speak about Harvest of Empire?
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Yes, the film is premiering there at the Gene Siskel Film Center on Friday night, and I’ll be there after the 8:15 showing for a Q&A with the audience, and then at Wayne State University at noon on Saturday.
AMY GOODMAN: And we’ll put all the details at our website at democracynow.org.
Democracy Now!
Filmmaker Robert Greenwald on "War on Whistleblowers: Free Press and the National Security State"
Filmmaker Robert Greenwald on "War on Whistleblowers: Free Press and the National Security State"
Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We turn now to whistleblowers and the unprecedented attack they’ve come under during the Obama administration. Evoking the Espionage Act of 1917, the administration has pressed criminal charges against no fewer than six government employees, more than all previous presidential administrations combined.
AMY GOODMAN: A new film directed by Robert Greenwald looks at four whistleblowers who had their lives practically destroyed after they went to the press with evidence of government wrongdoing. They are Michael DeKort, Thomas Drake, Franz Gayl and Thomas Tamm. In the film, Greenwald also interviews government oversight experts and investigative journalists who warn about the chilling effect prosecutions may have on potential whistleblowers and the journalists who help them. This is the trailer of the film, War on Whistleblowers: Free Press and the National Security State.
FRANZ GAYL: I had to do something. If not me, then who? I said, “This needs to be fixed.”
THOMAS DRAKE: I thought about various investigative reporters that I would try and contact.
THOMAS TAMM: Once I put the phone down, I was pretty confident that my life would never be quite the same.
MICHAEL DEKORT: I mean, at the end of the day, right, when you make a decision like this, if you’re not prepared to have the worst happen, then really don’t do it at all.
JANE MAYER: These people face a terrifying situation.
REPORTER: Thomas Drake, accused of leaking classified information. Agents raiding his home in Howard County.
THOMAS DRAKE: Eighteen agents, some of them in body armor, had been banging on our front door.
UNIDENTIFIED: Any time anyone takes a step like that, you know that they’ve probably got something important to say, because they are basically wiping away their career.
DANA PRIEST: There are close to a million people who have top-secret clearance.
MICHAEL DEKORT: The Obama administration had cracked down on whistleblowers.
WILLIAM KELLER: They have indicted more people for violating secrecy than all of the previous administrations put together.
UNIDENTIFIED: The number of people who indicated to us they wish they could talk, but they can’t, because they’re so afraid of what could happen to them, it’s a terrible thing for our democracy.
THOMAS DRAKE: So speaking truth to power is now a criminal act.
AMY GOODMAN: Some of those voices, Thomas Drake and William Keller of The New York Times, as well as Jane Mayer of The New Yorker. This is Democracy Now! The trailer of the new documentary, War on Whistleblowers is what you just watched. We’re joined now by its director, Robert Greenwald, and founder and president of Brave New Films, producer, director and activist.
Why did you make this film? You’ve looked at so many other issues. Why whistleblowers, Robert?
ROBERT GREENWALD: Well, there were a few things that came together. What we always try to do in our films is connect the dots and explore how the system is working. So we had the crackdown on whistleblowers, number one, but it wasn’t without reason. It’s very deeply connected to the growth and power of the national security state, which believes completely in secrets. So we had the whistleblowers. We had the national security state. And then we had some incredible investigative journalists being attacked, investigated, threatened, their careers at stake also. So we put all three of those together and made a film which allows people to understand what’s going on and how deeply threatening it is to us, in a kind of drip-drip way, where you don’t always see or understand what’s happening.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Bob, I want to turn to the case of Franz Gayl, a former marine. While working at the Pentagon as a science adviser for the Marine Corps, Gayl volunteered to deploy to Iraq. Upon his return, he alerted the office of the secretary of defense, and later the Congress and the media, to critical equipment shortages. These included mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles, or MRAPs. Gayl’s public outcry exposed the fact that the corps had failed to provide marines in Iraq with life-saving technologies. Yet Gayl has been the target of years of retaliatory investigations, workplace harassment, including the elimination of meaningful duties and extended suspension of his security clearances. In this clip, Gayl explains why he made the fateful decision to save lives by requesting MRAPs to replace Humvees in Iraq. Journalist Seymour Hersh is also in this clip.
FRANZ GAYL: I had to do something. If not me, then who? And if not now, then when? It was one of those situations. And I just said, “No, no, no, no. It doesn’t matter what the consequences are, personal or otherwise, right?” I said, “This needs to be fixed.”
SEYMOUR HERSH: Whistleblowers are just people who say there’s something more important here than my boss or the general or the admiral or the president.
FRANZ GAYL: The most common vehicle used was the Humvee. They were never built to withstand weapons that the insurgents were using, these IEDs.
UNIDENTIFIED: The estimates are that about a third of the casualties in Iraq were due to Humvees.
FRANZ GAYL: Hundreds of Marines were tragically lost, probably thousands maimed, unnecessarily. So I said, “Let’s replace the Humvees with what are called MRAPs, mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles.” The MRAP was bound to save lives.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: That was Franz Gayl in the clip from War on Whistleblowers: Free Press and the National Security State. Robert Greenwald, he was one of the few whistleblowers who actually was able to keep his job, where some of the others have had really terrible times after they did their exposés. Could you talk about that, as well?
ROBERT GREENWALD: Yeah. One of the things that was a common denominator with all the whistleblowers we interviewed is the terrible personal price they paid—even Franz. He was saving lives, literally saving hundreds of lives. He was fired initially. But this is where organizing makes such an incredible impact. Organizations, POGO/GAP got behind him. They worked. People called. They took action. And it really worked. It got him his job back. And it’s important to keep that in mind.
The other cases were horrific. And what is happening over and over again is the Obama administration and previous administrations are literally shooting the messengers—punishing the whistleblowers, trying to pass laws that make it harder for whistleblowers. And look, the only way we find out about the national security state is by these people coming forward.
AMY GOODMAN: Robert Greenwald, part two of this conversation, as we go through the whistleblowers, we’ll post online at democracynow.org. The new film is called War on Whistleblowers: Free Press and the National Security State.
As we wrap up, Juan, you’re headed out after tomorrow’s show to Chicago and Detroit to speak about Harvest of Empire?
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Yes, the film is premiering there at the Gene Siskel Film Center on Friday night, and I’ll be there after the 8:15 showing for a Q&A with the audience, and then at Wayne State University at noon on Saturday.
AMY GOODMAN: And we’ll put all the details at our website at democracynow.org.
Democracy Now!
Filmmaker Robert Greenwald on "War on Whistleblowers: Free Press and the National Security State"
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Disturbing Facts About State Lotteries: They Prey on the Poor and Trash the Economy, and Political Leaders Don"t Care (Hard Times USA)
The following article is part of AlterNet"s series on poverty, Hard Times USA.
State lotteries amount to a hidden tax on the poor. They eat up about 9 percent of take-home incomes from households making less than $ 13,000 a year. They siphon $ 50 billion a year away from local businesses—besides stores where they’re sold. And they are encouraged by state-sponsored ads suggesting everyone can win, win, win!
State lotteries, which once were illegal, now exist in most states. What many people don’t know about lotteries is that they prey on those who can least afford it; most people never win anything big; and 11 states raise more money from lotteries than from corporate taxes. Beyond the moral, mental health or religious debates over gambling, lotteries are another example of how society preys on the poor and the working-class.
Let’s look at why state lotteries do far more harm than good—especially at the bottom of the economic ladder.
1. Legalized gambling is almost everywhere.Legalized gambling is available in every state except for Utah and Hawaii. This includes state lotteries, which are in 42 states, Puerto Rico and Washington DC. Lotteries were illegal for most of the 20th century, but that changed in 1964 when New Hampshire—a state without an income tax—reinstituted a state lottery. The first lotteries predate the American Revolution, but those mostly privately run efforts were so corrupt they were completely prohibited by every state in 1894.
2. They suck billions out of the economy.In 2009, $ 50.4 billon was spent on state lottery tickets and video kiosks. The government pocketed $ 17.9 billion of this total in 2010, which breaks down to 30 percent in profits and 8 percent in administrative costs, including advertising. The rest went to prizes and commissions to stores selling the tickets. Many corner stores could not remain open without the income from lottery sales.
3. They are a tax from anti-tax politicans. Tax-averse Democrats and Republicans have increasingly been relying on state lotteries to subsidize basic public programs like schools instead of raising taxes for that purpose. In 11 states—Delaware, West Virginia, Rhode Island, Oregon, South Dakota, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas and Washington—the lottery raised more per person than corporate income taxes. “The long-term shift in tax burdens from capital and corporations to individuals and their activities is perhaps best illustrated by the rise of state lotteries,” wrote tax expert David Cay Johnston, calling lotteries “the most heavily taxed consumer product in America.”
4. They hit the poorest the hardest. “Simply put, lotteries take the most from those who can least afford it,” wrote economist Richard Wolff. “Instead of taking those most able to pay (the principle of federal income tax in the U.S.), state leaders use lotteries to disguise a regressive tax that falls on the middle and even more on the poor.” A 2010 study found that households with take-home incomes of less than $ 13,000 spent on average $ 645 a year on lottery tickets, which is about 9 percent of their income. The reason people play lotteries varies, but it mixes hopes and dreams with desperation: poorer people see it as a slim chance to radically improve their standard of living.
5. Communities of color, less-educated spend the most. Numerous academic studies have found that non-whites spend much more on lotteries than whites, with one study putting the figure at $ 998 for African Americans and $ 210 for whites. Household with incomes under $ 25,000 spent an average of about $ 600 a year, while $ 100,000-plus earners spent about $ 300 year. People who never graduated from college spent the most, about $ 700 a year, while graduates spent under $ 200.
6. They redistribute money up the economic ladder. Most people buy tickets and win little or nothing. This is taking more money from the poor, working and lower middle-classes than from those most able to pay taxes. These billions also are diverted away from local businesses—with the exception of the stores where tickets are sold. “This is exacty the opposite of the kind of economic stimulus a depressed economy needs,” wrote economist Wolff.
7. They give the wrong message about solving poverty. Lotteries reinforce libertarian political messages, suggesting that everyone needs to take individual action in response to socirty’s inequities, even though the government has helped well-connected individuals, businesses and industries become rich for decades. This easy money for states diverts political debate away from society-wide analyses and solutions to what prevents people from moving up the economic ladder. Instead, it pushes individuals in marginal circumstances toward gambling as their hope for gain.
8. They amount to one of the highest investment tax rates. Another way to look at the social policy hypocrisy surrounding state lotteries is to skip the moral dimension—the religious objections to gambling, the mental health costs of gambling addition, the hidden state income tax—and just compare the tax rates on this form of investment with tax rates on other types of inventments, such as stocks. State lotteries impose a 38 percent tax rate on buying tickets, according to Johnston. No taxes are paid when a person buys a stock or bond, a more preferred investment vehicle for wealthier households. Moreover, the current federal tax rate for earnings from short-term investments—held less than a year—ranges from 10 to 35 percent.
9. Hypocritical when compared to state drug laws. One of the rationales for criminalizing drugs is that abuse leads to addiction, which harms individuals, families and society at large. But state-sponsored gambling also feeds addictive behavior—people who are addicted to gaming, including lotteries. “I work in a convenience store and the way some people are addicted to the lottery is downright sickening,” wrote toddpugz, responding to a DailyFinance.com report on the topic. “I see people every day who scrape together their last few pennies to play the lottery. Even worse are the ones who claim the lottery is ‘fixed’ but continue to play it on a daily basis. And let’s not forget those who actually ‘study’ past numbers thinking it will give them some insight into the next day’s numbers.”
10. Big winners often see their lives unravel. One of the surprises that comes with winning the lottery—for the rare few who win big—is how a fast infusion of money can wreck families, disrupt friendships and even invite violent crime, con-men, and targeting by jealous family members. Some winners spend all their winnings in no time. Others just use it to fuel more gambling binges.
Revenue-strapped state legislatures may see state lotteries as an easy way to bring in the hundreds of millions that they need for basic government services—schools, police, roads and social safety nets. But state lotteries have become an easy way to take from the least wealthy Americans and avoid the harder task of making everyone pay their fair share. State lotteries may be as old as America, but so is the country’s history of economic exploitation.
Fri, 04/05/2013 – 16:36
Disturbing Facts About State Lotteries: They Prey on the Poor and Trash the Economy, and Political Leaders Don"t Care (Hard Times USA)
Friday, April 12, 2013
Sharif Kouddous & Lina Attalah on Egypt"s Media, Sectarianism & State Violence from Mubarak to Morsi
Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We turn now to Egypt, where there are new revelations that members of the army participated in the forced disappearance, torture and killing of protesters during the 2011 uprising that led to the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak. The details are included in a report submitted to President Mohamed Morsi by his own hand-picked committee. The report is not yet public, but The Guardian obtained a copy of a chapter that examines the crimes against civilians, beginning with the army’s first deployment to the streets. More than a thousand people went missing during the 18 days of the revolution. Many later turned up in Egypt’s morgues, either shot or bearing signs of torture. Despite the allegations, President Morsi has declined to prosecute any officers since he assumed power from the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces after his election in June. But the leaked chapter recommends that he investigate the highest ranks of the military to determine who was responsible.
AMY GOODMAN: This comes as Mubarak and his former interior minister, Habib al-Adly, are set to return to court Saturday to face charges that they were responsible for killing protesters during the uprising.
For more, we’re joined by Sharif Abdel Kouddous, Democracy Now! correspondent, fellow at the Nation Institute. He’s usually based in Cairo but happily joins us here in our New York studio, along with Lina Attalah, chief editor of Egypt Independent, a Cairo-based English-language newspaper and website.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Sharif, talk about this explosive new report.
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Well, it’s an interesting report. The most explosive part of it is that it was conducted by a fact-finding commission that was handpicked by the president himself. Many local Egyptian human rights groups have long documented abuses by the army. These abuses were also broadcast internationally when we had things like forced so-called virginity tests on March 9th; protesters arrested in Tahrir; perhaps one of the bloodiest incidents in the past two years, the killing of 27 people, mostly Coptic Christian demonstrators, in downtown Cairo on October 9th; and, of course, the putting of 12,000 civilians on military trial, more than Mubarak’s three decades in power. So, military abuses have been long known in Egypt. What is significant is that this is a commission handpicked by Morsi, and it puts pressure on the government to put the army officers on trial.
However, the Constitution that we have in Egypt, that was drafted by a body dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies and passed in a controversial referendum, ensures that the military can only be tried in a military tribunal. Only army members—army members can only be put on trial by military tribunal, which, you know, finding justice in that system will be very, very difficult.
And also, this comes in the wake of another leak of the same report last month to the Associated Press that found that police in Egypt killed nearly all of the 900 protesters that were killed in the 18-day uprising. Again, this is not news to Egyptians, who saw with their eyes police killing people. But this is evidence that—and puts pressure on the government and the prosecutor general to hold those accountable who committed these crimes and to stop this lack of justice and continuation of impunity in Egypt for these crimes.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: But what does the Constitution say about the police, as distinct from the military? Are they also—are they also subject to civilian courts or military courts?
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: They’re—civilian courts. And over the past two years, hundreds of police officers have been acquitted by this court system that has completely failed to hold anybody accountable. So, you know, the Constitution gave the military everything it wanted and more. And one of those was that its members would only be tried in a military tribunal.
AMY GOODMAN: According to the leaked report, investigators found members of the armed forces detained a number of civilians at a checkpoint outside Cairo who have not been seen again. It said, quote, “The committee found that a number of citizens died during their detention by the armed forces and that they were buried in indigent graves, as they were considered unidentified.” The report added authorities did not investigate, despite evidence of injuries and severe torture. Lina Attalah, can you talk more about that?
LINA ATTALAH: Like Sharif said, we are not surprised by these results, although these results, with the level of detail they offer, they present important corroborative evidence that implicate the army in the killing of protesters during the revolution. And this changes the dominant narrative that basically the army has protected the revolution and if it wasn’t for the army intervention it would have been a bloodbath back on 28 January, 2011. So this is very important at a time when the political situation in Egypt is very unstable, and there is a lot of talk about the potential return of the army in order to solve the current political stalemate. If anything, it reminds people that the military rule is as problematic as the current Islamist regime, and it also brings to all our attention the very critical issue of impunity.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Lina, when you talk about the continuing unstable situation, I’d like to ask you about this whole issue of sectarian violence, of the increasing violence between Coptic Christians and Muslims, and how that is affecting the general democracy movement in Egypt.
LINA ATTALAH: So, we have seen in the last few days another wave of violence against Christians in a small village outside of Cairo. And we’ve seen also that in the aftermath of this violence, during the funeral, the Coptic cathedral in Cairo, which is an important symbol of Christian faith, has also been attacked during the funeral, which is—which is a grave violation. If anything, it tells us that the current regime, like the previous one, acts with a lot of carelessness and nonchalance towards the question of sectarianism that is extremely prevalent in Cairo, in Egypt, and that is both representative of a societal problem but also further fueled by the state not acting responsibly in bringing those responsible to justice.
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: And also, just to add to that, sectarianism is a problem, a longstanding problem, in Egypt that’s regularly been swept under the carpet by regimes, successive regimes, saying this is—these are isolated incidents by outside forces seeking to destabilize the country, and not acknowledging this problem. And with the current regime, you know, there’s been members of the Muslim Brotherhood that have taken to the airwaves and used sectarian language that helps create this environment where this kind of violence can happen. Mohamed el-Beltagy, who is a leading Brotherhood member, who was seen for years as a reformist member of the group, in November, when there were clashes—or, sorry, in December, when there were clashes at the presidential palace, said that, you know, over 60 percent of the people protesting the president were Christian. The online—Ikhwanweb, which is the online site for the Muslim Brotherhood, has regularly accused Christians of trying to sabotage elections and things of this nature. So, it’s this kind of language that has helped to foment this violence, as well.
AMY GOODMAN: On Wednesday, the Egyptian President Morsi withdrew complaints against several journalists who were under investigation for allegedly insulting him and the Muslim faith. But the popular television satirist, the comedian Bassem Youssef, is among those still facing charges. This is a clip of Youssef speaking last month on his weekly show.
BASSEM YOUSSEF: [translated] What do have planned for us, Mr. President? And I’d also like to ask him on the renaissance program. I do not have any personal vendettas against anyone; on the contrary, it would be an honor for me to host any of those I criticize. It would be a success for myself and also a success for freedom of thought and expression, as it would send a message to the people that they, the Muslim Brotherhood, are in power, they accept criticism. And once they leave the show, I still criticize them. This happens all over the world, so why can’t it be for us?
AMY GOODMAN: That was the popular Egyptian television satirist Bassem Youssef. The U.S. says the charges come as Egypt has failed to investigate cases of extreme police brutality against protesters while continuing its crackdown on freedom of expression. We’re going to turn right now to Jon Stewart, yes, comedian Jon Stewart here in the United States, who was defending Bassem Youssef earlier this month on The Daily Show. This is Jon Stewart addressing Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi.
JON STEWART: Come on! Charging Bassem Youssef with insulting Egypt and Islam? I know Bassem. Bassem is my friend, my brother. There are two things he loves in this world with all his heart: Egypt and Islam—and his family. Three things. There’s three—and what is that flat bread with the cheese? It’s tart. It’s like a white—it’s not baba ganoush. It’s like—there’s four things that he loves. My point is, Bassem Youssef loves Egypt so much, he chooses to live there, even though some crazy guy is threatening to arrest him. Oh, right. But by the way, without Bassem and all those journalists and bloggers and brave protesters who took to Tahrir Square to voice dissent, you, President Morsi, would not be in a position to repress them. For someone who spent time in jail yourself—for someone—for someone who spent time in jail yourself, under Mubarak, you seem awfully eager to send other people there for the same non-crimes. And just like you, they will only emerge from prison stronger and more determined. So, all sending comedians and bloggers to prison accomplishes is lowering the quality of prison yard athletics.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Jon Stewart talking about Bassem Youssef. The significance of Youssef?
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Well, he’s got one of the most popular programs in Egypt and uses satire, much like Jon Stewart does on The Daily Show, to lampoon and to make fun of the current regime, mostly, the Islamist president. And this is something very hard to retaliate against—humor. It’s a weapon that’s been used by many people in Egypt to challenge the regime. And we saw, you know, these charges of insulting the president and—that have been used against many journalists and activists, as well, to clamp down on dissent. Bassem Youssef is someone who’s known around the world—Jon Stewart knows him—and he’s someone probably who will not be jailed because of his high profile. But there’s many activists in Egypt who are facing serious jail time. One of them is Hassan Mustafa, an activist in Alexandria who received a two-year jail sentence for allegedly slapping a prosecutor. And many eyewitnesses around them deny those charges, as does he. And, of course, many, many people arrested, killed during demonstrations, who don’t get this kind of—this coverage. So, you know, this is—again, Stewart put it very well, saying that these are the people—many of them elected Morsi against his opponent, Ahmed Shafik, who represented the military establishment and a return to the former regime, and now he’s cracking down on them. So…
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Lina, you also edit a newspaper and an online news site. What is life like in Egypt today for the press compared to under Mubarak? And what are the challenges that you’re facing right now in being able to get accurate news and information out to the people?
LINA ATTALAH: Well, while of course currently we’re enjoying a dynamic political scene that is making us write and report about Egypt in many more creative ways than before, one of the problems, besides of course the political and legislative limitations that are cast upon the media landscape in Egypt, there are also a lot of economic—economic challenges that also, in a way, mask a deeper political problem. So, a lot of the media in Egypt, if not controlled by the state, are controlled by business conglomerates who do not have real business development models for our newspapers and our television channels, and they highly depend on the subsidization of these businessmen. So the moment a businessman loses interest in a particular medium, no matter how successful this medium has become, what happens is that it faces the threat of closure, which is actually the story of Egypt Independent, for which I’m working and which we are working hard on trying to save, because we think we present a very important narrative both in Egypt and outside of Egypt about the situation that cannot otherwise be provided by only international journalists, for example.
AMY GOODMAN: How can you save it?
LINA ATTALAH: We are basically trying to develop an alternative business model, which basically entices a lot of our readers to contribute to the survival of the paper through a subscription drive. And this is also to open up a culture whereby readers should share the ownership of their media and not just leave them to the subsidization and the control of the businessmen. And in a way, of course, Democracy Now! is an inspiration for us.
AMY GOODMAN: And what is it for you as a woman? How is it for you to report in Egypt? And the climate for women overall?
LINA ATTALAH: It has been, of course, challenging, as much as it has been for men, particularly covering clashes, covering incidents of violence, where, you know, there is much chaos and there is not much security in there. So we basically, all of us, endanger ourselves for the sake of getting the story out. There are, of course, some additional threats for women with regards to mounting reports about sexual violence, particularly around Tahrir Square. But we also should remember that the question of sexual violence has been there for a longer time and should be addressed both politically and socially. But in general, I would say it has been as challenging as it has been for men to cover the Egypt story with honesty.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Sharif, we just have about a minute, but I wanted to ask you about the impact of outside forces on the Egyptian economy. There was a recent controversy over an IMF loan, and then Qatar and Libya have suddenly come in to offer aid to Egypt. What’s the impact of these outside players on Egypt’s situation?
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: That’s right. Egypt’s economic crisis centers largely around foreign currency reserves, of which we’ve lost about 20 billion in trying to support the pound. And this is a real crisis. And so, Qatar has stepped in with $ 5 billion and just a couple of days ago agreed to inject an additional $ 3 billion into the economy. Libya, a country which went through a civil war, is giving Egypt $ 2 billion. Saudi Arabia has given one billion. Turkey has given two billion. Without these—this kind of—these cash injections, Egypt would have gone under. And so, we’re still under the—going for these negotiations for a $ 4.8 billion IMF loan, which would entail a government reform package that would include austerity measures, subsidy cuts, tax hikes, which continue many of the same neoliberal economic policies that stirred up this revolt in the first place.
And let me just add quickly, on Egypt Independent, the importance of an outlet like this is that local Egyptian journalists, who have the knowledge of their country, can tell their story to the world through outlets like Egypt Independent, instead of being fixers for Western journalists and having that narrative translated through someone else. So, this is the importance of an outlet like that.
AMY GOODMAN: Sharif Abdel Kouddous, Democracy Now! correspondent, and Lina Attalah, chief editor of the Egypt Independent . In fact, we’re going to have a conversation Friday night at New York University Cantor Film Center at 6:00. I’ll be moderating. Check out our website at democracynow.org. And Democracy Now! has a job opening for an annual giving manager.
Democracy Now!
Sharif Kouddous & Lina Attalah on Egypt"s Media, Sectarianism & State Violence from Mubarak to Morsi