My Water's On Fire Tonight (The Fracking Song)

Chris Hedges on His Lawsuit Against the President

Truthdigger of the Week: Chris Hedges - Truthdigger of the Week - Truthdig:

Late last year, President Obama pulled a fast one by changing his stance on the National Defense Authorization Act so suddenly and drastically that Americans were left with a bad case of legislative whiplash—and a very serious state of affairs with regard to our civil liberties. Obama’s stunning switch underscored how abuses of power on the government’s part must be called out through uncompromising counter-statements from the people and the press. That’s why the choice was eminently clear to make Truthdig columnist, author and activist Chris Hedges our pick for this installment of Truthdigger of the Week.

First, a little background. Citizens and lawmakers from different vantage points along the political spectrum were rightly concerned, particularly about Section 1021 of the NDAA, which allows for the indefinite detention, without trial, of anyone believed to have “substantially supported al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States,” as well as Section 1022, which stipulates that such suspects with terrorist ties can be held in military custody. (Read a useful and thorough explanation of the two controversial passages here.) We certainly were worried, several times over. As Truthdig Editor-in-Chief Robert Scheer put it in his Dec. 15 column about the NDAA, Congress’ support of the bill, as well as Obama’s surprise decision not to veto it, “should be met with public outrage.”

Since then, motions have been made around the country and on Capitol Hill—including a showy bid by Republican presidential contender Ron Paul—to repeal the bill. But it’s hard to think of a gutsier move in the face of this form and degree of injustice than Hedges made on Jan. 13 when, with the help of attorneys Carl J. Mayer and Bruce I. Afran, he filed a complaint against Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to “challenge the legality of the Authorization for Use of Military Force as embedded in the latest version of the National Defense Authorization Act.” In case you hadn’t noticed, this means that Hedges is suing the president.

This also means that many readers’ No. 1 pick for months now is finally claiming the Truthdigger title this week. Hedges’ unflagging commitment to defending our endangered freedoms has recently led him to not only take up the cause whenever he takes up his pen, but to speak up at debates and protests, on the television and the radio, and also to show up when it counted most at the White House and on Wall Street. We’ve re-posted his discussion about the lawsuit with Amy Goodman on Tuesday’s “Democracy Now!” below, and we’ve compiled his many words and appearances on his author page here. Bravo, Chris, and thanks.

Democracy Now!:

Censorship in the world's largest democracy

Censorship in the world's largest democracy - Opinion - Al Jazeera English:

Many sites - including right-wing US blogs, alongside file-sharing sites - are blocked in India [Hashem Said/Al Jazeera]

San Francisco, California - In the world's largest democracy, something is brewing that could have grave implications for freedom of expression. On January 12, in response to a private lawsuit, a Delhi High Court judge, Justice Suresh Kait, told lawyers for the Indian offices of Facebook and Google that, unless they develop the capability to regulate "offensive and objectionable" material on their sites, the Indian government would block their websites, "like China [does]".

The complaint, filed by Vinay Rai, a magazine editor, was filed under laws banning the sale of obscene books and objects, as well as one pertaining to criminal conspiracy. It demands that the companies - as well as companies providing similar services, such as Yahoo - screen content before it appears on their sites. 

In a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, Rai explained that the evidence he submitted to the court included content offensive to Hindus, Muslims and Christians. "My intention is to ensure that the sentiments of any religion or community are not hurt," he told the Journal.

In October, well before Rai's lawsuit emerged, India's acting telecommunications minister Kapil Sibal, met with top executives of Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Yahoo's local offices to demand the same. 

Executives from the companies told the New York Times that the minister expects them to set up a "proactive pre-screening system" that would have human staffers seeking out objectionable content and deleting it before it appears. According to the same report, the companies called the demand "impossible".

Are we entering an age of cyber-censorship?

While the companies involved may refuse to pre-screen content, they already offer various channels for removing certain types of content. Users can report or "flag" content, which is then reviewed by staffers of the social networks. Furthermore, many companies remove certain content at the request of governments; according to Google's transparency report, 358 requests for content removal were made by Indian government entities between January and June of 2011.

A history of censorship

Though nowhere near the levels of China's Great Firewall, India is no stranger to online censorship. Try to access the sites of religious extremists or even certain right-wing US blogs and you'll be greeted by a "server not found" page, obscuring the censorship. According to the OpenNet Initiative's latest book, Access Contested [PDF], internet service providers (ISPs) in India block a number of websites, including some containing information on free expression and human rights.

While lacking transparency for the end-user, India's censorship is not without legal basis. The Information Technology Act of 2000 criminalised the online publication of obscene information, while a 2008 amendment to the act, section 69A, gave the central government broad power to block public access to content deemed to be against the interest of India's sovereignty and integrity.

In charge of implementing the censorship is the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team, which receives complaints from police and government officials and issues blocking orders. Police commissioners can also order content that poses a "threat or nuisance" to society blocked under a separate code. The city of Mumbai created a special police team charged with identifying such information following the 2008 terrorist attacks.

In 2011, yet another regulation was added to the mix, requiring intermediaries (companies such as Google that host online content) to adopt terms of service that prohibit users from publishing or sharing a range of content, including that deemed to be obscene, infringing on copyright, "menacing", "disparaging", or threatening to national unity, integrity, or public order. The over-broad regulations were criticised by Indian NGOs and commentators - but nonetheless passed, going into effect in April, despite existing provisions protecting intermediaries from liability. 

Striking a balance

"Unlike books and paintings, online expression cannot easily be hidden from view."

That all of these regulations were not enough for the Indian government is telling: The world's largest democracy has long grappled with striking a balance between freedom of expression and maintaining order. From the banning of Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses in the 1980s to the lawsuits against artist MF Husain, India's modern history of censorship serves as a precursor to the various restrictions placed on internet use.

But unlike books and paintings, online expression cannot easily be hidden from view. Try as it might, the Indian government has not managed to succeed in limiting the speech it finds distasteful; the offending content, even when blocked, remains accessible to savvy internet users through use of simple proxies. 

And if the government does succeed in blocking YouTube, Facebook and other social networks, it may have more to contend with than just speech. As researcher Ethan Zuckerman posits in his Cute Cat Theory of Internet Censorship, when the tools of our everyday lives become collateral damage in governmental efforts to block speech, citizens take notice. In Tunisia, where political speech had been censored for decades, citizens took to the streets when Facebook was blocked, prompting the government to free up the site after just a week. Turkey's YouTube ban sparked awareness among a whole new generation of internet users.

So while many of India's savvy internet users are already well aware of what their government is capable of in terms of censorship, a ban on social networks may be just what it takes to push others over the edge.

Jillian C York is director for International Freedom of Expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. She writes a regular column for Al Jazeera focusing on free expression and internet freedom. She also writes for and is on the Board of Directors of Global Voices Online.

Exclusive: New U.S. Commando Team Operating Near Iran

Exclusive: New U.S. Commando Team Operating Near Iran | Danger Room | Wired.com

Photo: U.S. Navy/Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Ashley Myers

Tensions between the U.S. and Iran are at a high point, as the Islamic Republic threatens to close off a vital waterway and two U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups sit in the seas off the Iranian coast. But across the Persian Gulf, the U.S. has a previously unacknowledged weapon in reserve: a new special operations team.

Danger Room has confirmed with the U.S. Special Operations Command that a new elite commando team is operating in the region. The primary, day-to-day mission of the team, known as Joint Special Operations Task Force-Gulf Cooperation Council, is to mentor military units belonging to the U.S.’ oil-rich Arab allies, who collectively are known as the Gulf Cooperation Council. Those Arab states consider Iran to be their primary foreign threat.

The task force provides “highly trained personnel that excel in uncertain environments,” Maj. Rob Bockholt, a spokesman for special-operations forces in the Mideast, tells Danger Room, and “seeks to confront irregular threats.” The U.S. military has not previously acknowledged the existence of the team, known as JSOTF-GCC for short.

The unit began its existence in mid-2009 — around the time that the Iranian leadership rejectedPresident Obama’s offer of a new diplomatic dialogue and underwent a serious internal challenge to its legitimacy from Green Movement protesters. But whatever the task force does about Iran — or might do in the future — is a sensitive subject with the military.

“It would be inappropriate to discuss operational plans regarding any particular nation,” Bockholt says about Iran.

There is no direct evidence that JSOTF-GCC has been involved in offensive action against Iran. It is unlikely, for instance, that JSOTF-GCC killed Iranian nuclear scientist Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan last week, an assassination the U.S. has firmly denied any role in and for which the Israelis, reports Eli Lake of Newsweek, are all but openly taking credit.

Some special-operations veterans — who did not wish to be identified or quoted — downplayed the significance of the new task force, expecting it to primarily advise Gulf nations on how to train their own forces, and speculated that its actual role against Iran was indirect at most. Col. Tim Nye, the chief spokesman for the U.S. Special Operations Command, says the task force is responsible “for coordinating all SOF [Special Operations Forces] engagements and training with Gulf Cooperation Council nations.”

The special operations forces of those nations have shown a notable improvement over the past year. Qatari commandos quietly traveled to Libya ahead of Moammar Gadhafi’s downfall to prepare Libyan rebels for the successful capture of Tripoli. The United Arab Emirates, another close U.S. ally, has also made its elite forces a priority, even hiring Blackwater’s founder to bolster their training.

Not many details are available about the task force. It’s built around Naval Special Warfare Unit Three, one of the elite Navy SEAL teams. But the “Joint” in the task force’s name signals that it draws from the special-operations forces in the Army, Air Force and Marines as well. Its commander is a Navy captain or equivalent in a different service.

Officials would not identify missions of the task force, its leadership or its headquarters, citing the safety of the personnel involved and the success of those missions.

Even if JSOTF-GCC is primarily a training team, it represents another military option for the U.S. in the region during at a time of escalating rhetoric with Iran. The Iranians are threatening to close off the Strait of Hormuz, the sea lane through which a fifth of the world’s oil travels, as two U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups float nearby. And when the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says the U.S. could reopen the waterway by force, there might be an elite commando team nearby to help do it.

Victory for Internet Freedom: Obama Announces Opposition to SOPA, Congress Shelves Bill

Victory for Internet Freedom: Obama Announces Opposition to SOPA, Congress Shelves Bill | | AlterNet:

The Protect IP Act and Stop Online Piracy Act have generated intense opposition because of their crackdown on Internet freedom--and that opposition just won big.

 

Misguided efforts to combat online privacy have been threatening to stifle innovation, suppress free speech, and even, in some cases, undermine national security. As of yesterday, though, there’s a lot less to worry about.

At issue are two related bills: the Senate’s Protect IP Act and the even more offensive Stop Online Piracy Act in the House, both of which are generated intense opposition from tech giants and First Amendment advocates. The first sign that the bills’ prospects were dwindling came Friday, when SOPA sponsors agreed to drop a key provision that would have required service providers to block access to international sites accused of piracy.

The legislation ran into an even more significant problem yesterday when the White House announced its opposition to the bills. Though the administration’s chief technology officials officials acknowledged the problem of online privacy, the White House statement presented a fairly detailed critique of the measures and concluded, “We will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet.” It added that any proposed legislation “must not tamper with the technical architecture of the Internet.”

Until now, the Obama administration had not taken a position on the issue. The response was published yesterday as part of the online “We The People” petition initiative launched by the White House last year.

Though the administration did issue a formal veto threat, the White House’s opposition signaled the end of these bills, at least in their current form.

A few hours later, Congress shelved SOPA, putting off action on the bill indefinitely.

House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said early Saturday morning that Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) promised him the House will not vote on the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) unless there is consensus on the bill.

“While I remain concerned about Senate action on the Protect IP Act, I am confident that flawed legislation will not be taken up by this House,” Issa said in a statement. “Majority Leader Cantor has assured me that we will continue to work to address outstanding concerns and work to build consensus prior to any anti-piracy legislation coming before the House for a vote.”

It’s possible that a related version of SOPA could come back at some point down the road — though probably not this year — but for now, the push against the bill has succeeded beautifully.

Fast Food Ads Vs. The Real Thing

Fast Food Ads Vs. The Real Thing:

FOOD BUZZ Everyone knows the disappointment you experience when you purchase fast food and inside the box is something close to a botched science experiment. But, for whatever reason people still feel compelled to eat it anyway. Well, here's a series of pictures taken by Dario D. that will make you feel even worse than that Bacanator you just ate.

And the award to the least offensive burger goes to....

Abolishing War: A Conversation with Krzysztof Wodiczko

Daily Serving ? Abolishing War: A Conversation with Krzysztof Wodiczko:

January 2, 2012

By Michelle Schultz

Tags: Krzysztof Wodiczko, London, war, WORK Gallery

Abolishing War: A Conversation with Krzysztof Wodiczko

Krzysztof Wodiczko’s work is powerful, politically charged and bears great momentum. Best-known for transforming architectural structures and monuments through loaded public projections, Wodiczko’s projects fight for the change he wants seen in the world – a global society free from the destructions of war. When the artist and professor was recently in London for the occasion of his exhibition The Abolition of War at WORK gallery and launch of Krzysztof Wodiczko, a comprehensive monograph chronicling his decades of work, we sat down to discuss his ongoing projects and the loaded topic of war.

Krzysztof Wodiczko, War Veteran Vehicle, Liverpool, 2009. Photography courtesy Robert Ochshorn.

Michelle Schultz: With your project War Veteran Vehicle - a transformed military vehicle that fires fragments of statements by soldiers and their families on the façades of public buildings – the highly personal and revealing testimonies make the subject quite vulnerable, and I imagine there are many barriers that need to be overcome to achieve this. Could you begin by telling me a little about the process that is involved and how you approach those that you worked with in the project?

Krzysztof Wodiczko: Well, those projects would not happen if I did not establish some trustful contact with the social workers who are trusted by veterans, homeless, or immigrants – places where people try to connect and try to help each other. I first present an idea, then they have to test me and I have to pass their test – they have to protect people with whom they work from people like myself, and from people like you. Then, the project and myself, we have to be tested by those who are potential co-artists. This is not easy – very often you start with rejection or destruction, psychologically speaking, of my presence and of the work. It is something coming from outside and invading them and maybe manipulating them. They must first properly destroy any doubt, and if I survive this, and the project survives this, then I show up again, and I am ready to be of some kind of service. In this process, the confidence amongst some of these people develops and they might make use of this project for their own lives, and for lives of others who cannot join the project because it’s too early for them, it’s too dangerous, too risky…

MS: Do you continue to keep in touch with the people that you work with in your projects? Are you aware of how the project has affected their lives, and the long-term impacts of it?

KW: For them, and for me, the thing in itself is the end of sometimes a year-long process of recording. Inevitably some ties develop, also among people who are part of the project who normally would not connect. So something is sustained – some of the projects continue in the sense that the network established by the project is still operational for awhile. So they help each other, but I am not part of it. My job is to disappear, it is their project. When it all somehow works for them, it is their success. If it doesn’t, it is my failure.

Krzysztof Wodiczko, War Veteran Vehicle, Liverpool, 2009. Photography courtesy Robert Ochshorn.

MS: Now, you have initiated the War Veteran Vehicle project in various locations, including Poland, Denver, Liverpool and most recently, Eindhoven. Do you plan to continue this work in other places?

KW: Yes, but not forever. Unfortunately, circumstances demand more work in this area because there will be an enormous amount of soldiers coming back, especially in the United States. In Europe, most of the people are coming back from so-called peace missions, but it is a normal war. And it is very important that they make sure that through their words they explain that it is a war, and what it means to be at war. Also what it means to be a family of those who come back from war, or who have left for war, or who are absent because they are somewhere fighting, and in what way those families are proper war veterans themselves.

MS: Yes, some of the most powerful statements come from the families of soldiers who have come back from war, as they convey how these veterans have returned home, yet are lost to them psychologically or emotionally.

KW: An incredible amount of people are victims or survivors of secondary trauma. Each time someone comes back, he or she re-traumatises seventy-nine people according to experts who work on this in the United States. And young people are blindly signing up for the army because there is enormous amount of propaganda, a certain image and a lofty sense of mission, duty, country. This is something veterans know very well. They were processed through this war machine and they know there is no relation between the way they were before and they way they are now. And they know how much they are resented by society. In fact, they are foreigners and they are homeless in their own country and in their own homes. When they came back, they didn’t really come back, they’re gone. And the chance that this will happen is very high in comparison to previous wars because most people will come back alive, rather than dead, because of better armour and medical technologies. The fallout of them being alive, in this way, is tremendous.

In Poland, half of the people who are speaking through the vehicle are women. In Liverpool there is one woman, but it is very significant as she is speaking about almost being killed by her husband, and the husband also says that he almost killed her and he doesn’t remember. These things are not only the facts, but the fact that they are being said by those people themselves, in the open, is significant. Speaking in a public space itself is an act of incredible shift – only one percent of veterans speak in public, and almost none of the families. It is also acoustically very powerful  – it reverberates and echoes and is reflected from the blank and blind façades of the buildings and monuments that have witnessed events in the past.

MS: So the buildings and walls you use are not only a physical or practical part of the project, but an important symbolic one as well?

KW: Yes, there is an extremely thick wall that separates those who know what war is, and those who don’t. So in a way, this is an attempt to shake the wall, and crack it, and maybe make a little a little break in it. In that sense, the wall is an important word here, and the façade is also an important word, and the monument is an important word – because walls, façades, monuments and memorials are obsessed with not only remembering and saying certain things, but also with not saying a lot of things, and forgetting a lot of things about the war.

Krzysztof Wodiczko, The Flame, Governors Island, 2009. Photography courtesy Michael Marcelle/Creative Time.

Marine unit in Afghan abuse video identified

Marine unit in Afghan abuse video identified - Americas - Al Jazeera English:

All four US Marines seen in an online video apparently urinating on corpses in Afghanistan have been identified, and two of them have been questioned, US military officials have said.

An official said on Friday that two men "have been questioned" by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service over the disturbing footage but are "not in custody".

The official, who asked not to be named because of the ongoing probe, confirmed the Marines seen in the graphic footage are from a sniper unit in the 3rd Battalion, 2nd Marines based at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, and that the two men questioned are both on active duty.

Tracking down the other two Marines took longer, apparently because they had been transferred from Camp Lejeune, said the official. But the US military confirmed all four men have now been identified.

That unit served in Afghanistan's Helmand province from March until September of 2011, the official said. The remaining two soldiers have since moved on to other units.

'Fullest extent'

The footage, which appeared on the internet, appears to show four men in military uniforms urinating on three bloodied bodies on the ground, apparently aware that they were being filmed.

Leon Panetta, the US defence secretary, accepted the video as genuine, saying in a statement: "Those found to have engaged in such conduct will be held accountable to the fullest extent."

In a phone call to Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Panetta expressed his regret over the incident and promised an investigation.

"I have seen the footage, and I find the behaviour depicted in it utterly deplorable. I condemn it in the strongest possible terms," Panetta's statement said. "This conduct is entirely inappropriate for members of the United States military."

He ordered the Marine Corps and General John Allen, the US commander of international forces in Afghanistan, to immediately and fully investigate the incident. 

Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, also expressed "dismay" and condemned the "deplorable behavior".

'Negative impact'

Al Jazeera's Rosiland Jordan reports

"By acknowledging this video's existence almost from the moment that they learned of it, the US Marine Corps, the US military, indeed the entire US government is trying to tamp down international reaction that would have a negative impact on the US mission in Afghanistan," said Al Jazeera's Rosiland Jordan, reporting from Washington.

"This is a situation that does worry officials here in Washington because they know that no matter how quickly they condemn these sorts of actions, even though they say they are rare, they also know that the reaction from people who will see this is really uncontrollable.

"They can't tell people that the Americans can be trusted when things like this circulate on the internet," Jordan added.

Our correspondent said the video would make the work of US forces in the country much harder.

"The timing could not be more difficult. The US is trying to work out efforts to engage in direct peace talks with the Taliban, it is trying to support the Afghan government’s efforts to promote reconciliation," she said.

Afghan condemnation

In Afghanistan, the video was condemned by Karzai, the ISAF international coalition and by the Taliban.

"The government of Afghanistan is deeply disturbed by a video that shows American soldiers desecrating dead bodies of three Afghans," said a statement from Karzai's office. 

"This act by American soldiers is simply inhuman and condemnable in the strongest possible terms."

 In a statement, the Taliban said the incident was "against all international human rights" but "not the only example of the horrific actions that the Americans have done in Afghanistan".

"American soldiers are trained to spread horror and this is one of the examples," the Taliban said.

"We also call on the United Nations and other Human Right groups to block such inhumane acts of the hypocritical America and put into practice the humanitarian slogans which are always exclaimed by these organisations," the group added.

However, the statement also said the incident would not affect negotiations with the US after US officials said Washington would send an envoy to Afghanistan to prepare the ground for direct peace talks between the two sides.

"This is not a political process, so the video will not harm our talks and prisoner exchange because they are at the
preliminary stage," said spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid.

About 20,000 marines are deployed in Afghanistan, mostly in Kandahar and Helmand provinces, in the south of the war-ravaged country.

Over the years of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, officials periodically have been stunned by the troops' penchant for taking photos or videos of themselves engaged in inappropriate or criminal acts.

The US military has been prosecuting soldiers from its army's Fifth Stryker Brigade on charges of murdering unarmed Afghan civilians while deployed in 2010 in Kandahar province.