Wikileaks releases what could be evidence of the murder of Reuters journalists as well as civilians in Iraq

WWW--This is a very big deal and gives some more context to possible harassment of Wikileaks by American military and/or intelligence personnel as well as of anyone trying to report the reality on the ground in American occupied Iraq and Afghanistan.

I don't even know how to put this into words, but I do recall this incident from July 12th, 2007 where Iraqi Reuters journalists Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh were killed by "friendly fire"...only now it appears that the fire was quite intentional and anything-but-friendly. There also seems to be an element of bloodlust and cowardice on the part of the crew of the Apaches. Did they know the two were journalists? This is unclear, but there is mention in the communications transcript from the copters that seems to connotate that they knew they were "civilians."Is this yet another "isolated" event?

Recall that in early April 2003, three Al-Jazeera journalists were killed by "friendly fire," and also calls to mind the "accidental" shooting of hostage and Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena who was fired on by American troops just outside of the Baghdad International Airport and nearly killed. One of her Italian intelligence agent rescuers--Nicola Calipari--died of his wounds. Sgrena worked for the Italian Communist paper, Il Manifesto. One might think you're life might be in danger as a correspondent if you're not towing the line for the Pentagon.

A separate site from the main Wikileaks home has been created for the release, possibly for security measures to prevent its hacking:

5th April 2010 10:44 EST WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff.

Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-site, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded. (www.collateralmurder.com/index)

The military has been mostly silent on how the event occurred and how the slain died, but ruled in an inquiry that the rules of engagement at that time were observed. The whole story underscores the weakness of the FOIA as well, but whatever works, it's out now. Reuters demanded an inquiry and action in the aftermath in 2007, just as they've had to in obtaining the release of other Iraqi Reuters employees/journalists, from Iraqi prisons, and got very little from the Pentagon--at least not copies. They were shown the materials off-the-record. Criminals don't tend to indict themselves, especially when they're the ones in power.

There's no indication from any source of any combat or exchanges of fire immediately before the Apache helicopter gunner opened-fire on civilians and the two journalists, killing as many as eleven. One individual was viewed brandishing an RPG (soviet-designed rocket propelled grenade), but was seen after the event began and shots had already been fired. Two U.S. Army Apache helicopters were involved the 2007 incident with some ground forces nearby. Footage from one helicopter has been leaked to Wikileaks by a military whistleblower(s) and the activist site itself claims to have conducted interviews with other journalists, military personnel and other witnesses at the scene, including consulting with Reuters over the basic facts and timeline.

...WikiLeaks obtained this video as well as supporting documents from a number of military whistleblowers. WikiLeaks goes to great lengths to verify the authenticity of the information it receives. We have analyzed the information about this incident from a variety of source material. We have spoken to witnesses and journalists directly involved in the incident.

WikiLeaks wants to ensure that all the leaked information it receives gets the attention it deserves. In this particular case, some of the people killed were journalists that were simply doing their jobs: putting their lives at risk in order to report on war. Iraq is a very dangerous place for journalists: from 2003- 2009, 139 journalists were killed while doing their work. (ibid)

Wikileaks makes a fine point that occurred to me almost immediately: if we're seeing what we think we're seeing (and hearing), the event could even be part of a pattern of violence, harassment, and intimidation against members of the press in American war zones, especially considering that Reuters has had other incidents of harassment directed against their personnel in Iraq. A few of these journalists were arrested under flimsy pretenses and ferried off to the palatial Abu-Ghraib prison where God knows how they were treated. Now is a time of scoundrels. It hasn't ended with the national elections of 2008.

Wikileaks appears to have done their homework and have even included photographs, a timeline, documents, and even the transcript of the communications between the helicopters, also very telling when taken with the rules of engagement at the time and the 38 minute video. This exchange is most galling and not honorable behavior for soldiers of any army, of any nation:

...17:46 Well it's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle.

17:48 That's right. ...

18:29 I think they just drove over a body.

18:31 Hey hey!

18:32 Yeah!

18:37 Maybe it was just a visual illusion, but it looked like it.

18:41 Well, they're dead, so. ...

(http://www.collateralmurder.com/en/transcript.html)

After these comments, there were more shots fired by the crew of the main Apache helicopter and a missile was fired into a building filled with armed civilians. There's no indication that any shots had been fired at the military personnel at any point in the roughly 38 minute event. It should be noted that many Iraqis carry AK-47s into dangerous areas, which one can assume, is when occupying troops and militias are present. Johnny got his gun, was instilled with fear and trained to kill, and imbued with a hair-trigger mentality. This isn't how soldiers are supposed to behave, not at all. Yet, the Pentagon says that this was part of the rules of engagement at the time. Are they sure they want to stand by that one?

Contrary to popular belief, life isn't a videogame.

"BREAKING NEWS-LEAKED VIDEO FOOTAGE EXPOSES PENTAGON MURDER COVER-UP," The Elf Wax Times, 04.05.2010: http://www.elfwax.com/news/breaking-news-video-footage-to-expose-pentagon-murder-cover-up/

Wikileak's page on the 2007 slaughter: http://collateralmurder.com/en/download.html

Tyler Bass's blog: http://spectaclemonopolized.blogspot.com/

NYTimes article on original Baghdad attack in July 12, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/world/middleeast/13iraq.html

"The war on Wikileaks and why it matters," Salon.com, 03.27.2010: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/27/wikileaks?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+salon%252Fgreenwald+%2528Glenn+Greenwald%2529

http://www.collateralmurder.com/en/transcript.html

"U.S. Bombing Raid Kills Three Journalists in Bagdad," Fox News.com, 04.08.2003: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83503,00.html

The lay of the land...

WWW--From a source. Thanks source! ;0) I'm not sure about the veracity of the Iranian information and make no claims to the veracity of the rest, but this seems about right.

CONNECTICUT (1130 EST):

EXP: "Multiple" x KIA/// +200 WIA (Kleen Enerby Facilty)

Blast shockwave: +/- 10 Miles///Blast soundwave: +/- 20 Miles

SYRIA:

Israel informed US, EU & UN of Syria transfer to Hezbollah in Lebanon of Iranian Fateh110 SRBMs (short-range ballistic missiles) (variant of Russian SS-1 and Chinese DF11) and of right to strike Syria if Hezbollah fires SRBMs

IRAN:

Iran informed UN, IAEA & EU of increased number of missile & uranium enrichment facilities

02 FEB 2010 "Khavoshagar test number 3" (ICBM development)

Missile - Safir2 (Shehab IRBM)

Satellite - Omid (MIRV warhead development) (space orbit - 245.5 km perigee and 381.2 km apogee)

United Nations Secretary General Moon (South Korea - Troops: Iraq & Afghan)

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Amano (Japan - Troops: Iraq & Afghan)

NATO Secretary General Rasmussen (Denmark - Troops: Iraq & Afghan)

Amnesty International General Secretary Shetty (India - largest labour at U.S. base's: Iraq & Afghan)

SRBM: <>

MRBM: <>

IRBM: <>

ICBM: > 6,000km intercontinental-range (> 3,000 miles)

SLBM: submarine-launched ballistic missile

Photos from Baghdad's recent spate of violence...

Baghdad, Iraq--The images below were sent to me by a source (thank you!) in private security today. The first two are the Iraqi Foreign Ministry. Newsflash: Iraqis want us out, now.

Portions of suppressed detainee photos may have been online since February 15, 2006

Sydney, Australia--A section of the detainee abuse photos that President Obama is fighting the release of in federal court might have been posted as early as February 15th, 2006 on the Sydney Morning Herald's site by-way of an anonymous whistle-blower of unknown nationality. Some of these photos are as bad if not worse than the ones previously released in 2004 to a horrified world.

The president has stated that keeping the photographs from disclosure is to protect American troops and to limit any more damage to the reputation of the United States throughout the world, especially in Muslim nations. The security situations in both Iraq and Afghanistan have also been invoked.

All the president is pointing-out is that torture doesn't work and that he would prefer we don't know about...just like the last president. They honeymoon's over, believe it. It's even money that Rahm Emanuel weighed-in on this one in a very big way, but that's Dutch Schultz for ya'.

Below are a few photos I captured from the Australian site, just in case they're "yanked" (pun intended).

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/photos-us-doesnt-want-seen/2006/02/14/1139890737099.html

Free Muntather al-Zeidi (shoe thrower)!

WWW--Here's the text of the petition. He threw shoes and was beaten for it. That's unjust. Al-Zeidi was just doing what every reasonable human being has wanted to do to George W. Bush in-person for a very long time, only not with shoes.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/montather/

"'This is a gift from the Iraqis. This is the farewell kiss, you dog," shouted Muntather al-Zeidi in Arabic as he threw his shoes at Bush during a news conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Dec. 14th.

Multiple sources in Baghdad confirmed that Mr. Al-Zeidi was heavily beaten right after the incident. (He can be heard shouting in pain in this video). And after beating him, the Iraqi authorities arrested Mr. Al-Zaidi.

Here is a statement issued by Al-Baghdadia (the TV channel he works with):

www.albaghdadia.com/
(rough translation)

Al Baghdadia asks the Iraqi authorities to immediately release our employee Montather Al-Zaidi in line with the Iraqi and US promises of democracy and freedom of expression. Any action taken against Montather Al-Zaidi will remind us of the behavior we experienced during the time of the dictatorship era that when we witnessed violence, arbitrary arrests, mass graves and the confiscation of public freedoms and private.

We also call for press and media institutions and the Arab world to stand in solidarity with Montatger Al-Zaidi and call for his release.

(end translation)

Please sign this petition to demand the immediate release of Mr. Al-Zeidi"

Man throws shoe at outgoing President George W. Bush at Iraq press conference

"This is a goodbye kiss from the Iraqi people, dog!"
--Muntadar al-Zedei, displaying more courage than the entire American public since the 2000 inauguration.

Baghdad, Iraq--Where was the Secret Service? Guarding the real president, Barack Obama back in the states.

Iraqi journalist Muntadar al-Zeidi did what no American has had the moral courage to do since the 2000 inauguration when the public threw ice-balls, snowballs, and rocks at the then president-elect: throw things at George W. Bush out of a well-earned disrespect. The Al-Baghdadia television correspondent did what most of us have wanted to all along (if not much more), this time not throwing something at a television screen but the actual source of irritation.

Disappointingly, he almost connected, and didn't, but it sums-up the president's relationship with Iraq and the world. This must be some kind of hell for a man who has always prided himself on being liked.

Unfortunately, the president's intelligence on the shoe size and its trajectory were a little off. But his experience in baseball and his indefatigable ignorance saved the day--he ducked the spitball. Hey, they dragged Al-Zeidi away by force (authorized by Congress in 2002), so he's making sure everyone knows he's still "fearless leader," our great Generallisimo, until January 20th, 2009. Still, where's the blame for the CIA in this one? That leads us to...

Statistically, a mere sect (located somewhere in West Virginia-by-way-of Idaho), a cult, still supports the war in Iraq in the United States. They're overeager believers with a pinch of fear, paranoia, and desperation. That's because something should happen to people like them.

Throwing the full weight of the law on top of Bush would be more appropriate, or simply enforcing it, but that's inconvenient and could be messy.

As Bush stated so ineloquently but accurately, "So what if the guy threw a shoe at me?" Right, so what? He knows that he's done enough to warrant far worse and that at minimum he should be before the Hague, not a press conference in Baghdad for a bye-bye visitation with his victim, Iraq. From 2003 until now we went from Iraqis throwing shoes at toppled statues of a dictator, to an Iraqi throwing his shoes at the real deal, a strange kind of progress, but progress nonetheless.

Now Al-Zeidi's action is there for the ages, making him as immortal as Gavrilo Princip taking aim at the Archduke...and missing, but trying again until he hit his target. George W. Bush is going to have to look over his shoulder for the rest of his life, and eventually, the bill will come due. His nail-biting anticipation will be punishment enough, but these precedents must be rolled back.

Future generations will look at us as we look at past ones: "How did they put up with it? Why didn't they do something more? What were they waiting for?" Exactly. What were we waiting for all this time? The cavalry, of course, and it never came because life isn't a movie.

The lowest insult throughout the Middle East is to call someone a "dog," they're fighting words, and Al-Zeidi was echoing what nearly every single Iraqi feels. They will never give up, and they will never stop fighting to remove America or any foreign power from the region.

Barack Obama elected first Black President of the United States!

America--Thanks Indiana, you surprised me: you elected the first Black American President of the United States!! There's no irony here. The last public lynching of Black men in America occurred in Marion, Indiana in the 1930s. We used to be "Klan central," and in some parts of this state we still are. We elected Roosevelt in 1940, but we've tended to vote Republicans into the White House.

Indiana has shifted, and I place much of the cause here to the dying-off of the WWII generation, the economy, and the obvious reasons for the economic mess we're in right now. Americans are also tired of the war and an unaccountable Republican presidency whose last days are finally nigh.

I wondered today, "How will I actually feel when Barack Obama wins this election?"

The only word right now is: elation! No, things aren't going to change overnight, and no, Obama will have his very disappointing moments, but the wheel has at least turned at least on the while, male dominance of the executive branch. Whether this means any significant change in policy remains to be seen, but history (and the public) have a way of forcing the hand of leaders.

Will he be an FDR for our time? I hope so, it was beginning to look like the normal cycle in our politics of GOP excesses followed by the Democrats cleaning it all up wasn't ever going to happen!

None of this means we can all sit-back. We have to all stay engaged and tell President elect Obama what we need from him.

An immediate return to progressive taxation is in order. Will he do this? I'm sorry to say that I doubt he will until 2010--events regarding the economy could force his hand. Obama's cow- towing to corporate interests, his stances on foreign policy, and his stance on socialized medicine, are just a few possible warning signs that he's not going to deliver much unless we tell him what we want in no uncertain terms.

Still, I'm pleased that this has happened and that at least a good number of the GOP are leaving Congress. It's overdue, and it proves that no candidate who voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq in 2002 can ever be president. There's more of a chance that Barack Obama will rise to the occasion of another Great Depression than a Republican president, it's just the reality. He might try listening to Ralph Nader some time...oh yeah, and the rest of us. Stay involved.

If Obama becomes president-elect

A'murka--Look, you have no idea how thrilling the idea of a Black American president is to me. The only single group of Americans that I've consistently had respect for besides Jews are Black people. Not Poles, not German-Americans, not anyone else.

But the problem is, we're probably all going to hate Obama after he's done very little in the social agendas we all need expedited. We're going to have to fight and pressure him to do what's right. Even if the Democrats somehow win a veto-proof and filibuster-proof majority in both houses of Congress, most of them are going to do their best along with the Republicans to derail any substantial social-dividend.

That's right: I'm saying that if Obama wins, in three-years you're all going to hate him and think he's the same kind of son-of-a-bitch that's leaving office on January 20th, 2009. Why do I think this? My knowledge of American history and its trends and cycles, especially regarding the last 30 years. That said, I wouldn't dissuade many voters from casting their votes for candidate Barack Obama, and would never advocate them voting for a Republican in any lifetime. Obama's record is hardly sterling or pure on a social agenda, let alone on the wars in the Middle East, nor regarding the obvious crimes of the Bush administration.

Obama has voted for funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq without exception, and there are troubling-signs elsewhere. For a former professor of constitutional law, he has some very peculiar viewpoints on what's acceptable behavior by a presidential administration. He has not called for the prosecution of a patently criminal administration, let alone for its impeachment. While it's true that he didn't vote for the authorization of force in Iraq, it's even money that he would have, his only out being that he wasn't a member of Congress at the time.

Mark these words: you're going to hate this man if he wins, and in a very short time...unless you apply extraordinary pressure on him and Congress to push for a more social agenda for all, a genuine redistribution of wealth that's unprecedented in our history. Only then can we be a viable nation that can compete on the world stage, bringing-back a nation that was once an innovator in so many areas.

This requires breaking the logjam of concentrated power, that greatest threat to ingenuity, spontaneity, and inventiveness that really did make this a great nation at one time. My feeling is he's going to blow it because he's going to be told to by his handlers. He shows all the warning-signs. I'm voting Nader/Gonzales so I can sleep at night.

Obama chooses longtime Sen. Joe Biden

Springfield, Illinois--It's great to be wrong about this choice! Senator Obama has made a much better decision than I thought he was capable of--he's no slouch, and an intelligent man. I do believe he's going to win thanks to this decision. While Biden voted to approve the use of force in Iraq, he was one of the first in the Senate who did so to admit it was a big mistake.

Biden isn't perfect--not by a long-shot--but he's better than most of the other possible choices that Obama could have made. Choosing Hillary Clinton would have been a bad idea of variety of reasons.

Namely, that the Clinton campaign was willing to do anything to defame candidate Obama to win. You cannot trust someone like that as a running mate under any conditions, and it's likely that Mrs. Clinton would have done a lot of back-stabbing.

Considering the new and expanded power of the office of the vice president under Dick Cheney, the damage could have been incredible to an Obama presidency, a potential death-blow (that we wouldn't know the details of for years). The wounds between both camps are hardly healed, but they might be with the voters.

For myself, the real tests will come in the first month of an Obama presidency. Some of the "fixing" is going to require going after the former members of the Bush II administration. I don't expect that there will be any significant or fundamental changes in their economy, their government (not really ours), the damage done to our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and our illegal presence in the Middle East.

The GOP is not solely responsible for all of this. The Democratic Party and their incumbents in Congress own a great share of the blame for standing down on their responsibility to rein-in a lawless presidency--the most lawless in our history, bar none. These precedents cannot be allowed to stand and their reversal must be part-and-parcel of a genuinely progressive agenda.

Now, the GOP is making all kinds of predictable comments on the Biden nomination that aren't going to float with any but the most ignorant authoritarian, but there are similar threads in the speeches of Obama and Biden that are sometimes troubling. How much they invest in these themes will be borne-out in their policies. But: it's good to be wrong sometimes. Senator Joe Biden voted against the revision of FISA and the telecom immunity provisions. The best part of all of this will be watching Biden beat on the GOP's incumbents. They've earned it, and-then-some.

FOR NATO: Pier Paolo Pasolini's Salò (1975) review

Social order at the expense of liberty is hardly a bargain. ---The Marquis de Sade

So you say you've seen nearly every major Italian giallo? You've seen your Argento, Mario Bava, Lucio Fulci, Michele Soavi, and even all of the "classics" of Italian film? You've seen your Leone, Fellini, DeSicca, Bertolucci, Martino, and even most of the world classics? By this point, you've probably seen it all, and you think there's no film that will shock you?

If you haven't seen Pier Paolo Pasolini's "Salo: 120 Days of Sodom," you are flatly wrong. Pasolini didn't even live to see the release of this film. He was "murdered" by a male hustler (or so the official story plays).

Who was Pier Paolo Pasolini? Pasolini was the most important postwar intellectual in Italy, period. Like a Renaissance polymath, he was adept at journalism, the novel, poetry, screenwriting, directing motion-pictures, painting and drawing, and more. The polymath also liked cruising teenage boys, was a walking scandal, and yet paradoxically truly was the conscience of postwar Italy until his murder on November 2nd, 1975. He could only be an irritant in the culture he arose in, and he pricked the conscience of a nation. It's likely that he engineered his own murder, placing its date on the day of the dead as a frame...

Pasolini's revolutionary philosophy was simultaneously opposed to fascism and communism, and he had many enemies in the political arena, as well as the religious one with the Vatican. All said, however, it's possible that Pier Pasolini was murdered by a right wing assassination team under the aegis of "GLADIO," a NATO program of secret armies throughout Western Europe. GLADIO began, ostensibly, as a defense against a hypothetical Soviet invasion of Europe.

Overall, GLADIO was more often used to attack legitimate leftist political parties, trade unions, and populist groups. GLADIO operations were responsible for breaking the Marseilles dock strikes in the late 1940s as just one example of their handiwork. Their activities in Italy during the Cold War are known to be extensive. Italy is a flashpoint, a fixed, coordinate in the nexus of control of the Western power structure.

In Italy, the Red Brigade bombings in the 1970s were even instigated by GLADIO operatives to justify a law and order crackdown on the Italian Communist Party who were poised to take power at that time. It's a mystery as to how much influence the CIA had in all of this. The existence of the P-2 conspiracy (oddly, involving the Vatican, the CIA, KGB, and renegade Freemasons!) had yet to break in the international media. All this aside, there were dozens of politically motivated killings in 1970s Italy, and Pasolini's was just one of many.

One has to ponder the Vatican's involvement in his murder, as they were a primary adversary of Pasolini. And so, Salo enters this bloody fray. It could not be more controversial, and it's a scream of rage against how little we all really care about or value human life. Pasolini was outraged and disappointed with the human condition, and Italian politics had become a bloody chaos, leading director Sergio Leone to remark at the time that, "Italian politics have become ridiculous." Both directors were friends.

The scenario of Salo is fairly simple: a group of Italian fascists retreat to a palace in Northern Italy (where there was a great deal of support for Italian fascism and the Monarch) with a group of sixteen captive boys and girls. One is a bishop, a judge, a politician, and-so-on, representing symbols of established authority. It is Mussolini's short-lived Republic of Salo, created especially for him by the disintegrating Nazi regime. Hence, "Salo" is a title that almost any Italian of the 1970s (or today) might recognize. For 120 days, they degrade their victims in almost every imaginable--and unimaginable--manner.

There is homosexual rape, sundry forms of buggery, forcing people to eat excrement, forced heterosexual couplings, forced marriage, sadism of every kind, and finally, death. Just about everything you could imagine occurs, and worse. Of course, it's all based loosely on De Sade's tale and stays pretty close to the text's themes and scenarios.

Pasolini chapters each section with some of the structure of Dante's "Inferno," which is a real mark of his genius. One can even sense an atavistic Manichean influence in the work, which isn't surprising: Friuli has been historically known as an ancient citadel on the Northern "boot" of Italy, where the ideas of the world hating sect are still evident in the local culture. Pasolini's home state, Friuli, has been thought of as a place of subversion for centuries.

The Italian polymath understood that, under the right circumstances, we are all capable of these depredations. This is a lesson that he and others learned during the resistance to Italian and German fascism in Italy during WWII. Pasolini witnessed and experienced injustices committed by the partisans, losing his own brother to a firing squad.

There's a little Hitler in everyone, and we all the potential to become assassins under the proper conditions. Beyond that, To say this film is merely a statement on fascism would be wrong--it's a manifesto on what cruelty rests within all human hearts, especially once one has supped on power. In Salo and his other works in other mediums, Pasolini is saying that humanity has a dark heart and that nothing is really true.

This was the point that "Italy's conscience" had reached artistically by 1975, though his existential crisis regarding the future of humanity had begun much earlier. Salo was always lurking there in Pasolini's mind, waiting for its time to emerge. Some online reviewers have stated that they didn't find the film shocking--they should check themselves into a clinic somewhere, as Salo is beyond shocking. But it should be remembered that De Sade was only writing about the sexual habits of his kind--the aristocracy before the French Revolution of 1789. De Sade wasn't simply trying to shock. He was chronicling the sexual tastes and behaviors of the French aristocracy before the revolution.

I've noticed that even avid fans of contemporary directors such as Takashi Miike respect the power of this film. Miike has some similarities in theme and style with Pasolini, but goes for a more genre, stylized look (it's not the heady 1970s anymore). Even John Waters lists this film as sicker than his own worst offenders. It could be argued that Desperate Living (1977) is an oblique spoof of Salo. To say I was shocked by this film would be an understatement. But, besides being pretty sick, this film looks astonishingly lush and challenges the audience by shoving the beautiful and the grotesque in our faces. This is another aspect of Pasolini's genius of showing us depredations in such a lovely setting.

Salo transcends the subversive and never fails to shock. The late Tonnino della Colli's cinematography lends the film a look that could be hung in the Louvre, and it gives the film a greater subversive edge overall. Several of the shot compositions resemble well-known works of Western art. Della Colli was director of photography for Fellini, Sergio Leone, and many other classic Italian directors. It should be noted that the film is not "legitimately available" in the United State for copyright reasons. However, there are very good copies out there even though it's not in print. I found a copy that's an exact duplicate of the original US edition for a decent price, so it is out there to be found with a little searching.

The Criterion edition is reportedly the most expensive collector's DVD in the world, going for as much as $1,000.00 USD. [Ed., 08.31.2008--Which is now probably devalued with the new Criterion edition.] This was the best transfer in 1998, but it appears that there is a new continental European DVD purported to be definitive, as well as a BFI edition that's unexceptional. This writer possesses a few Ken Russell DVDs ("Salome's Last Dance") that are worth as much as $300.00 USD, so this is a shocker! It's funny to see used DVDs of the big Hollywood fare at $3.99 USD, while these are in the hundreds! It says a lot about what is lasting and meaningful to people, and it's not blockbuster movies.

A dubious company called "Water Bearer" has a set of Pasolini's other works, but I have it on good word that they are of extremely poor quality and aren't restored and come from aging 35mm prints. It would be nice if Criterion did a Pasolini Box that included a new HD transfer of "Salo" with extensive restoration. Salo is one of the most important films ever made. We all stand accused, even the filmmaker, and that's the point. Be forewarned: not for children or adults who fear soul-searing, raw existentialism. So, why? Why would anyone want to watch this? 

NOTE: The "ass-judging-scene" is similar to photos of the "flesh pyramid" at Abu-Ghraib. The new Criterion edition will bring a fresh reassessment of this Italian masterpiece, with only the omission of one extraneous 25 second scene. It will be HD from the best film elements. Brace yourselves.

(Revised 07.06.2008)

[Ed., 10.05.2008--I see no reason why Pasolini couldn't have been murdered by various rightist elements, while at the same time having brought it about purposefully. Why not?]

Exploiting our victims: CNN's "Youssef"

CNN--There are no words for how despicable and misguided all of the coverage surrounding this poor little Iraqi boy has been. It's just another humiliating illustration of how sick and indifferent our culture is at this particular historical moment. This is nothing new.

In 1906, we were finishing a similar act of aggression in the Philippines, murdering tens-of-thousands of human beings there so that the Navy could have a refueling station in the Pacific.

In a war of aggression, it's understood in the codes of the Geneva Conventions (beginning in 1928 with President Coolidge's and the Senate's ratification of the Kellogg-Briand Pact) and other areas of international law that an aggressor is responsible for children like Youssif. For some reason, Americans haven't been properly educated about the fact that any deaths or injuries following an illegal invasion are the fault and responsibility of the aggressor nation.

Regarding the invasion and occupation of Iraq (and Afghanistan), we are the aggressors with no legal merit to our reasoning for the attacks. We did this to little Youssef. It doesn't matter if a militia of Shia, Sunni, Syrians, Iranians, or even Bedouins, set-fire to him. It's nobody else's fault but America's. CNN and the rest of the mainstream media carried the water for the Bush administration and banged the drums of war loudly for the interests who wanted the invasion.

This is to their eternal shame, and they now appear to be showing signs of cracking-up from the guilt...in little Youssef. Notice that it's OK to show someone like Youssef and their scars if it has a propaganda value. If it was just framed as something we did to him--which it was patently not in the CNN story--it might be noble, but this is far from that. How many tens-of-thousands of "Youssefs" are there in Iraq and the region who bear scars from our aggressions? Surely, it's staggering and creating another generation of future "terrorists." An historical example is necessary.

Imagine Youssef that was a grocer's son in Chicago during the 1930s. Youssef's father is attacked and intimidated by a gang that has taken-over their neighborhood, and they want protection money or they're going to torch their home and their business. Youssef's father declines paying these extortionists and the gang eventually firebombs the grocery store, causing the same injuries to him that we see in our current real world example.

But the gang doesn't stop there--they're afraid of looking too bad, and too dangerous, so they pay for Youseff's hospital bills while the cameras are rolling, and while the press is swallowing the lie out of fear. The thugs never return to torment Youssef and his family, but the damage has already been done.

This is the essence of the term "corruption," the destruction and liquefaction of human bodies for the enrichment of criminals. Welcome to Iraq, welcome to hell, we are that gang. We learned the lessons of Vietnam alright: hide the victims, even if it's necessary to hide them in-plain-sight.

CNN on August 23rd: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/23/iraq.boyfolo/index.html

FOX NEWS PREEMPTS PALFREY INTERVIEW FOR OVER-COVERAGE OF JESSIE DAVIS BOMBSHELL

pre·empt [prE-'em(p)t]

Function: verb ...

Etymology: back-formation from preemption
[;] transitive verb

1 : to acquire (as land) by preemption
2 : to seize upon to the exclusion of others : take for oneself
3 : to replace with something considered to be of greater value or priority : take precedence over (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/preempt)

Fox News--You knew it just had to be too good to be true: Geraldo (Jerry Rivers, that guy who was fired from 20/20--not mad dog)was to do a segment with Deborah Jeane Palfrey at 8PM Eastern tonight, but there was a breakthrough in the case of the missing Jessie Davis. J-7 extends condolences to the Davis family and everyone affected in Canton, Ohio, this is a horrible day.

All that said, I knew when I learned of the piece that it could never run tonight (don't ask me how, but I do watch David Cronenberg films a lot)--and they must be breathing easier at Fox, I couldn't understand why they of all news networks would want to run an interview on a scandal that appears to be heavily-populated with members of the GOP. [Ed., 06.24.2007--I'm beginning to see the light on this--cover your ass, or "CYA"]

You know, people known to Roger Aisles. It wouldn't surprise me if he made the call to yank everything else. There wasn't even a mention during the program of what was preempted, which was interesting.

This is not to take away from the suffering, the confusion, the anger, or the sense-of-hopelessness that must be pervasive in Canton right now, this is a horrible event. But to run the same footage of her body being wheeled-out from its dumping-ground--over-and-over--after the family of Jessie Davis asked Fox News to stop running this specific imagery, is unconscionable.

It also throws-into-question their preempting of the Palfrey interview (with her civil attorney Montgomery Blair Sibley), and why they would schedule it at all. Then there's the people who ignore me--Rawstory. Here's part of what I got in the e-mail announcing the Fox broadcast that might yet drop:

Additionally, Mr. Sibley and I will be guests on “Geraldo”, Saturday, June 23rd. The interview will be my first in a nationwide setting, since the 20/20 piece aired on May 4th. I hope to discuss my displeasure with the ABC broadcast and why I believe the network held back names at the last moment. I hope to announce my decision to distribute the phone records (all years 1993 to 2006) to as many responsible media, press and bloggers as possible, once the current injunction prohibiting me from releasing the invoices is lifted [Ed.-my emphasis. This is where I think Rawstory's headline is misleading. 'If an eye offends thee...']– and my reasons for doing so. Furthermore, it is Mr. Sibley and my hope we will be able talk about the fact that the Government, with the intentioned/unintentional assistance of the Courts has been able to seize and hold my property for 9 months now, without a hearing on the matter.

Instead, we get a full 2hrs. of the same aspects of the murder of Jessie Davis in excruciating monotony, with the original program "thrown into the air." All for ratings. It's a sad statement on where American journalism is...or rather, where it isn't: where the real ones that have genuine national implications stories are. Oddly, Rawstory didn't include the article by myself that was enclosed by Jeane in the newsletter.

It's OK, I still recommend them and will continue to read their very informative journalism, and their great site. They're doing good work as far as I'm concerned. Nonetheless, they might check into some of the observations I made in the article here on Ed Norris, and it's just the beginning. Again, if anyone wants Postal Inspector Joe Clark's home phone number, it's here for-the-asking, laddies.

The motives were ratings, and that's fine if you're doing entertainment, but it becomes unseemly when you start chasing stories like the Davis ambulance to a point where it's just whiting-out everything else. Somehow, some way...I knew the interview couldn't run. I just hope it was taped and that Fox News can finally run it. If they never do, we know they may have never had any intentions, which is very curious. Oh yeah, a few-days-ago 17 American soldiers were killed in Iraq, then 7 just today, nothing special. Especially all the Afghani and Iraqis who have been killed by-the-dozens.

If only we had an Oracle of Delphi for our times...but missing white girls are all that matter, not runaways, prostitutes, Black women and children, Black men, the uninsured, Native Americans on the reservations, the unemployed, the homeless, our soldiers, our liberties, nada. Geraldo did have on a nice pin-striped suit, however, he looked sharp, even svelte. Where is the wisdom?

Rawstory's--those folks who like to ignore me--headline appeared a little misleading, as I also received the same e-mail they did, and I didn't notice much about the "DC madam says she may announce decision to distribute phone records." It makes you think that Jeane Palfrey would do it without an end to the injunction on her phone records, which isn't likely. To be fair and balanced, we'll just have to wait-and-see. Death to Videodrome, long live the new flesh.

Rawstory's take before the broadcast that didn't happen (watch them ignore me, it's amusing and at our mutual expense now! Hilarity ensues!): http://rawstory.com/news/2007/DC_madam_says_she_may_announce_0623.html

Addendum: I'm told by sources that the show's producers (of the segment, which also wasn't so exciting) will be airing it tomorrow, and that "I'm sorry this came from above so we will put the interview as is on our show tomorrow. Again I'm sorry this was beyond our control but it will air tomorrow night at 8pm." Goodnight Gracie.

THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS & MEMBERS OF HQ, 5TH SIGNAL COMMAND (IN THE MIDDLE EAST) VISIT J-7 (BRIEFLY)

J-7--They came to read about...Deborah Jeane Palfrey, but who doesn't want to know about it? My heart goes out to dog faces everywhere, you're the ones who get caught in the middle of all of the bullshit politics in Washington.

Now, I'm not saying any soldiers, sailors, or airmen should do this--because it would be illegal--but if I was over there, I'd desert and make a run for Sweden, Italy, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Finland, or Holland. But that's me.

[Ed., 09.13.2008-A very early blurb. I sure wish I had pasted the meter entry, but there it is. A large number of deserters are running to Ireland. Shhhhh!]

SADDAM HUSSEIN'S LAWYER URGES INTERNATIONAL BLOCKING OF HANDOVER TO IRAQI AUTHORITIES

"According to the international conventions, it is forbidden to hand a prisoner of war to his adversary." --Khalil al-Dulaimi, attorney for Saddam Hussein, 12.27.2006.


"What's clear is that the Iraqi government won't be able to protect the Sunnis from Iranian-backed militias if American troops leave. Its army and police cannot be relied on to do so, as tens of thousands of Shiite militiamen have infiltrated their ranks. ...There is reason to believe that the Bush administration, despite domestic pressure [Ed.-The American midterm-elections have only increased this pressure.], will heed Saudi Arabia's advice [demands]. "
--Nawaf Obaid, security advisor to the House of Saud, 09.27.2006, writing in the Washington Post.

Baghdad--It appears the Bush administration's desperation for any kind of break in Iraq has put them on a course towards the execution of their former client, Saddam Hussein. ' "I urge all the international and legal organizations, the United Nations' Secretary General, the Arab League and all the leaders of the world to rapidly prevent the American administration from handing the president to the Iraqi authorities," he [Khalil al-Dulaimi, Hussein's attorney] told The Associated Press.' Well, that's fine, but did they prevent the still illegal invasion of Iraq? Yes, things have definitely changed, but Hussein's execution (and the inevitable upsurge in social chaos and violence) seems assured.
(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061228.wsaddam1228/BNStory/Front/home)

Nonetheless, the UN, the Hague and a constellation of Human Rights groups have chimed in, though it's unclear what would actually induce the Bush administration from altering their course regarding Hussein, let alone a phased withdrawal of American troops. It should be remarked, however, that UN and global opposition made the run up to war very-difficult for the Bush administration at a time when their powers were at their zenith. It's still mind-boggling to think that the Bush administration had approval ratings in the 90s, but this was only possible due to the attacks of September 11th, 2001. Strident opposition to Bush administration aims could still work, particularly in light of the November 7th midterms that were essentially a plebiscite on the war (and the GOP scandals in general). In an October 30th LA Times article, Al-Dulaimi warned that a full-blown civil war would erupt in reaction to Hussein's execution, so his point on this factor has been ongoing for months. It's likely Hussein will be executed anyway. (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-saddam30oct30,1,7585188.story?coll=la-headlines-world)

How many days will the execution buy the Bush administration? Probably just the ones leading-up to the execution, though the insurgency already seems emboldened by the news. When you're a hydra-headed national liberation front, and you're capable of kidnapping over 100 people in broad daylight, one can assume order has collapsed. Remaining elements of the Baathist Party have vowed a full-fledged uprising upon the execution, but maybe they know something the Bush administration doesn't (not a stretch here): Iraq ends as a nation state with the death of Saddam Hussein, and the grab for power will accelerate. Again, something even a casual observer could notice. But, why wouldn't the Bush administration notice? Bald ignorance, and frequently the wilful variety.

Most of the gaffes spring from this because Iraq was never a real country, and was created after WWI by the British as a conglomeration of various religious and ethnic groups (capped with an unsuccessful occupation during the late 1930s). Like Afghanistan, there was little concern by British planners for the subtleties of these geopolitical creations. In this sense, Iraq and Afghanistan are very similar to the former Yugoslavia. Marshall Tito knew full well that only a dictatorship could maintain order within such a conglomeration, proving as much by his decades-long rule (as did Hussein). Is Baghdad the next Sarajevo? Possibly. It seems fragmentation is becoming a fact, the "reality on the ground." Didn't British intelligence and members of their diplomatic circles warn the Bush administration of these "subtleties"? In fact, they did on several occasions and were rebuffed. This is well-known.

Because of the aforementioned subtleties, Saudi Arabia is vowing they will support Iraqi Sunnis if there is a "phased withdrawal of [American] troops". The fear is more Iranian influence in Iraq, and in the region. All of this would be by "proxy forces", yet we know that Saudi-nationals are already streaming into Iraq for similar aims, so the statement's thrust is a little peculiar (if not Janus-faced, which is how Middle Eastern politics work). Many of them are simply supporting the general insurgency, and one has to wonder how many of them are there on deep cover missions for the House of Saud, or other elements of the ruling clans. Saudi Arabia rarely ever states issues of security openly, so we don't know the details. It's likely Mossad has a better picture than the public. One can imagine other Muslim states like Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey (over the Kurds), various Gulf states, and even Pakistan following suit. Russia could also exhibit valid security concerns, making for a toxic mix at best, with economic ties to Iran being very deep.

Kuwait might also turn on her American allies in the State Department on this one for similar reasons, mostly concerning the security and stability of the current regime (along with sectarian loyalties). Security will be the prime-motivator of any Arab nation intervening into Iraq, with the factor of sectarianism and tribalism thrown in. Add Israel with potential aerial attacks on Iran, and we have a major war developing into a region-wide conflagration where everyone is reacting based on security and religious concerns. This is shockingly similar to the context that brought the Great War, and evokes images of timetables and trains. Voicing these kinds of security concerns in an interesting echo of the US immigration debacle, the Saudis announced in late September they were building a fence along the 560-mile border between Saudi Arabia and Iraq to keep out insurgents and immigrants (Shiite refugees? They're the minority in Saudi Arabia at 15%). 

Like its counterpart in the Americas, the fence will also take "5-6 years" to construct. One has to wonder whether the same contractors will be used. Ironically, one proposal by the Saudis is to increase oil production to hurt Iran with rock bottom prices.

The impact of this would be a global one to other producers, who would likely decrease their production to continue reaping the profits of the last few years. Venezuela's Bolivarist regime would certainly consider this option, as would numerous other producers and refiners. The irony of all this? Prolix, I know: ..."the current malaise in Iraq is simply vindication of King Abdullah’s warning that invading to topple Saddam would cause more problems than it would solve." This has come to pass, after repeated warnings before the March, 2003 invasion, from all quarters. Executing Saddam Hussein will only accelerate the disintegration of the existing order in the region. For even the most casual observer, this is incredibly dangerous, possibly making the unthinkable thinkable. It is just another wrong path. 

Much of this quagmire is based on the ignorance of tribal clan networks in the Middle East, and Hussein is tied to them. These networks know no border and extend throughout the Middle East--the execution will amount to a rallying cry for many of them. When he is executed, those clans will respond, and violently. It seems the White House feels it must take orders from Mecca, rather than from the American public. This is treason. Still want to be President? This is the cost of "winning", and ample proof that the aims for Iraq were incoherent from the beginning.


King Abdullah, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL (you haven't built yet):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/27/AR2006092701214.html

The Recent Threat of Saudi Intervention into Iraq (by proxy):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/28/AR2006112801277.html

A Great Overview by Tony Karon:
http://tonykaron.com/2006/12/01/rehabilitating-osama-and-other-iraq-remedies/

Chimpy McFlightsuit (TM) almost speaks: "Iraq is straining the nation's psyche."

"These are challenging times, and they're difficult times, and they're straining the psyche of our country. I understand that. You know, nobody likes to see innocent people die. Nobody wants to turn on their TV on a daily basis and see havoc wrought by terrorists," stated the Chimp in Chief to the White House Press Stenographers. Does he really understand?

Just a few years ago, we were all told Bush never reads-newspapers, never watches the news, and even recently has stated he isn't affected by the polls. YET, he makes comments like the above, so it's clear that he has recently taken these factors into account.

Right, we know Cheney never watches any other news except on Fox(http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0322061cheney1.html ). He's really the President, after all, and who wants to watch bad news that relates to oneself? Anyway, Bush keeps insisting that if we leave, then a disaster will become a "disaster" and it "would provide a safe haven for terrorists and extremists and give them revenue from oil sales."

Oh, instead of oil revenues to our own terrorists at the White House and the oil-sectors of the "global economy". And what happened to that $9 Billion that simply vanished when Paul Bremer left Iraq?( http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/ And funny, no accountability whatsoever. Did it happen under Bill Clinton's watch? Of course, the right wishes they could blame it on him, but no-dice. The whole thing is just another resource war, and 2/3rd's of the American public aren't going-along anymore. They're too lazy to do anything, including going-along. The Preznent's angry, which is tough-shit, the people have spoken: "We're too lazy, and besides, American Idol is on." Sometimes, apathy is a double-edged sword. Soon, they'll probably be speaking-loudly when gasoline is $5-6 dollars-a-gallon, and their atrophied-buttocks can get some circulation.

Like Joseph Goebbels during Stalingrad, the neocons and their supporters think if they keep spinning, lying and obfuscating the truth, that reality will conform to their propaganda on the ground. History has never worked this way, and it never will.

Before the invasion: Iraq was not a haven for terrorists, though it became one once we invaded. It's also becoming a combat training-ground for terrorist groups, where it had never been one before. Having been created by the British as an artificical nationstate with artificial borders, Iraq has been a hodge-podge of rival ethnic-groups, and it really isn't worth-saving. There have been many experts in geopolitics who have said splitting the "failed nation" into three-parts is likely the best route for Middle Eastern stability. Ah, and then there is the influence of Iran in Iraq nowadays, something that was impossible under Saddam Hussein. I think it's time--we need to invade our own country, but how will we justify it? Who knows, but we'll find one.

Speaking of justifications, the last pillar of "Why we went into Iraq" fell last week--with no reaction in the press whatsoever. The Bush administration, and the State Department are thinking seriously of "alternatives to democracy", because they have finally realized that the hodge-podge was only governable with an iron-fist (almost there!). We created this mess and we cannot avert a Civil War once it has begun, and it began long ago. The bill is coming due, much of it from People's Republic of China. We could build a bunch of escape pods and do a collective dine-n'-dash, but that would be communist.

Eventually, they're going to want Taiwan in the package too. Oil might not be based on the US dollar anymore. While morons talk about antiwar activists and the Left "appeasing" (who? North Korea?) "Islamofascists" (an oxymoron for oxymorons), the reality on the ground is going to make it clear what is really going on. We illegally invaded Iraq, and we are being repelled by attrition like any imperial power. Just like France in Indochina, just like Great Britain in North America and just like Spain and America from Cuba. Bye-bye empire, the gambit failed. We'll be better off for it in the end. But then, I believe everything I see on CNN and Fox. Oh, and I'll have fries with that too.