Propaganda War Wages On.

Conditions: Pretty damn sweet.

Flash: War Crimes Still Criminal


It's time to talk about the drone wars again. President Obama, in inheriting the war on terror from his predecessor, has organised military withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan, but has increased the strikes from hunter-killer drone aircraft.

As regards civilian casualties, on August 11, 2011 a report of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism said, “The Guardian published some of the pictures, we have obtained…as many as 168 children have been killed in drone strikes in Pakistan during the past seven years.” While rejecting the CIA’s false claim, the report disclosed, “It is a bleak view: more people killed than previously thought.”

Besides, a report of the New America Foundation revealed that President Obama has “authorised 193 drone strikes in Pakistan, more than four times the number of attacks that President Bush authorised during his two terms.” The report explained, “When the U.S. drones attack Pakistan’s tribal areas, it is not just the 10, or 50, innocent civilians they kill, these killings provide reason to youth for joining terrorist groups waging war against the U.S. and of course Pakistan…while killing 10 militants, the U.S. has murdered more than 1,400 Pakistanis not involved in any terrorist activities. Could it not be inferred that it gave birth to another 1,400 militants?”

The latest report, “Living Under Drones,” prepared by experts from the Stanford Law School and the New York University School of Law, disclosed that the U.S. campaign of drone “strikes in Pakistan’s north-western tribal belt is terrorising civilians 24 hours a day and breeding bitter anti-American sentiment. [They] have killed thousands of people…even stopping their children going to school for fear of being targeted.” Based on research, the report urged Washington to rethink its drone strategy, arguing it was counterproductive and undermined international law.

- globalresearch.ca/

Ok well this is clearly horrific. But now the problem is, it’s not seen as an actual problem. The great unwashed seem fairly uncaring about Pakistani civilians or the long term ramifications of a seemingly indiscriminate bombing campaign. What is seen as a problem, however, is more close to home.

After refusing in the past even to acknowledge the existence of memos offering a legal basis for targeting American citizens who’ve become Al Qaeda leaders, the Obama administration on Thursday agreed to show these documents to members of the congressional intelligence committees. It’s a positive step, but doesn’t go far enough. The administration owes the public a broader explanation of the legal theories behind drone attacks on Americans who have joined Al Qaeda, such as Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical cleric who was killed in 2011.

The attacks have become a topic of concern surrounding President Obama’s nomination of John Brennan, the White House counterterrorism adviser, to head the CIA. Earlier this week, NBC obtained an administration “white paper” outlining its procedures for targeting American citizens who have become “high level” Al Qaeda officials. The paper states that the CIA can strike only if “an informed, high-level official” decides the citizen poses “an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States.”

The paper raised alarms among civil libertarians and prompted calls from Congress for the full Justice Department memos, so lawmakers can determine whether the policy comports with US and international law. The focus of the American Civil Liberties Union’s objections was the elastic standard for determining what constitutes an “imminent” threat: The target must be a high-level Al Qaeda leader, but need not be actively engaged in a terrorist attack.

- bostonglobe.com

So, while the drones continue to attack nebulous targets surrounded by civilians, the American government argues ...over whether there are any Americans in the vicinity. The State of the Nation is Suck.

More: The count.



Film Review: Zero Dark Thirty

Katherine Bigelow has got to get away from the army. That’s the most obvious conclusion I have after sitting through Zero Dark Thirty. I say “sitting through”, as opposed to watching, because frankly this is the most boring action movie I’ve ever seen in my life, and I found myself at times contemplating my seat, the seat in front of me, the walls, my shoes, and even the floor instead of the screen before me. Zero Dark Thirty is apparently the true tale of the hunt for Bin Laden as carried out by the CIA in general, and Agent Maya in particular. I suspect the actual tale is more complicated and less slick than this, but as far as I’m concerned this is the tale they want to tell so, so be it. So after spending years torturing various Arabic people they get a line on a guy that eventually leads to another guy that eventually leads to a house in Pakistan. The send in the marines, who then shoot Bin Laden in his pajamas. There, I just saved you 10 bucks and two hours of abject boredom. You’re welcome.

Now I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking "Pish tosh. Why, this is the tale of the decade-long hunt for the most wanted man in the world, it should be fascinating." But I promise you, it so is not. There simply is no "movie" in this movie. Scenes happen, dialog is exchanged, various meetings occur. But regardless of all that, there is not once ounce of drama or conflict, or even actual character, to be found. Our lead character, and I use the term loosely, Agent Maya, is a hardass, who has no interests, no ideals, no passion, no bad habits, nothing but two hours of standing in various dusty parts of the world while staring grimly past the camera at things. Oooh, how dramatic. And of course there is no portrayal of Bin Laden or his minions at all to try and provide a counterpoint, so all we have is the opportunity to wait for the end sequence.

And yes at the end we have the night-vision raid on the compound. But before you get excited you should know it consists of twenty-odd men armed to the teeth taking on a rundown house filled with women, children and a couple of armed guys. Hell, the locked doors put up more of a fight that the terrorists do. If people find this sort of thing dramatic or exciting or intense then they must have forgotten what good movies were really like. It’s astonishing to me that this is the same director that made Point Break, one of the greatest heist films of all times - that made it a priority to get the audience to understand exactly who the bad guys were and how they clashed with the good guys. This is a fundamental point of storytelling, something an Oscar winning director should have a working knowledge of. Here the bad guys are just anonymous brown people, to be tortured, bribed, watched, and finally shot. This film is not a celebration of anything, instead it’s a grim and boring depiction of how far America has fallen in pursuit of victory. Half a flag out of five.



- Peace out