November 4, 2012

You are here: Home / Archives for Media / Propaganda

Dehumanized: Will Arabs Forgive Them?

July 11, 2012 By 3 Comments

He lives in a tent. He rides a camel. He carries a sword on his back.
She’s a seductive belly dancer.
She lives in a harem. She only exists for male pleasure.

They are Arabs.

The negative images of Arabs had long been emblazoned into our minds. Where do these images come from?

“Oh I come from a land, from a faraway place
Where the caravan camels roam
Where they cut off your ear
If they don’t like your face
It’s barbaric, but hey, it’s home”

This was one of the verses of the opening song “Arabian Night” in the movie Aladdin, one of the most successful Disney movies ever made.
Following protests from the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination, the lyrics were changed from “Where they cut off your ear if they don’t like your face” to “Where it’s flat and immense and the heat is intense”. Children from all over the world viewed Aladdin and Arabs have been portrayed as backward, barbaric, sinister, violent and imminently dangerous to the Western world.

At a very young age, many children start to learn stereotypes from the environment in which they are raised. They begin to acquire prejudices from their parents, teacher, peers, the media and others around them. They investigate the world around them and start developing their own racial identity between the ages of two and five. They first become aware of how people look. For instance, they start to notice the difference in skin colors. They also become aware of their own physical characteristics. Then they start seeking explanations for differences. At a later stage, they begin to identify with the ethnic group that they perceive themselves to belong to.

In his paper titled “Development of social categories and stereotypes in early childhood: The case of ”the Arab” concept formation, stereotype and attitudes by Jewish children in Israel”, Prof. Daniel Bar-Tal (Tel Aviv University) demonstrated the strength of the Israeli cultural stereotype of Arabs and its influence on young children. Research of concept development shows that Israeli children begin to use the word “Arab” between 24 months and 30 months of age and they also become able to draw a picture of an Arab man which represents their image of him. The majority of young children with any knowledge about Arabs associated them with violent and aggressive behaviors, directed mostly against Jews.

Us and Them

“The way we see things is affected by what we know or what believe” – Berger

The Western Media has projected negative images of the Arabs in order to create “Otherness”. The concept of Otherness consists of dividing people into two social groups: Us (in-group) and Them (out-group). The in-group views the out-group as being different in a fundamental way. The out-group may be of a different race, nationality, religion, social class, political ideology, sexual orientation or origin.

Evaluating others as “Us” and “Them” is based on Social Identity Theory developed by Tajfel and Turner in 1979. The theory is based on three mental processes:

  • Social categorization
  • Social identification
  • Social comparison

The first process is categorization. It represents our tendency to categorize individuals, including ourselves into groups. In his book “The Nature of Prejudice”, Gordon Allport (1954) wrote that the human kind must think with the aid of categories… Once formed, categories are the basis for normal prejudgment. We cannot possibly avoid this process. Orderly living depends upon it.

The second process is social identification. In this stage we adopt some of the values and behaviors of the group we have categorized ourselves as belonging to. In other words, we adopt the identity of that group. Belonging to a social group gives us a social identity that boosts our self-esteem by enhancing our image.

The final process is social comparison. Once we see ourselves as members of a group, we start to define ourselves by comparison with other groups. People make social comparison with other individuals they perceive to be better or worse off than themselves.

Many of the studies have shown that our self-esteem is maintained by making social comparison with other groups: individuals with high self-esteem tend to make upward comparison choices, whereas low self-esteem individuals tend to make upward comparisons only when there is no threat to their self-esteem (Wood, 1989).

In conclusion, society is composed of social groups that tend to maintain their self-esteem. The power and status relations between groups are based on social identity (Hogg and Abrams, 1988). Members of high-status groups gain positive social identity and high self-esteem. They even tend to discriminate and be prejudiced against low-status groups in order to enhance their social power and status.

Nations and Identities

National identity is the sense of one’s belonging to one nation. Based on Social Identity Theory, a nation defines its own identity by comparing itself to other nations. As a result, having an out-group strengthens a sense of belonging to a nation that places an enmity between “Us and Them”. In brief, a nation needs enemies to maintain its identity.

As Sam Keen puts it in his book Faces of the Enemy: “In the beginning we create the enemy. Before the weapon comes the image. We think others to death and then invent the battle-axe or the ballistic missiles with which to actually kill them. Propaganda precedes technology.” (1986, p. 10).

Governments use the process of creating enemy images as a method of social control. They rely on negative stereotypes in an attempt to create a common enemy. They vilify and dehumanize the enemy as merely being thief, murderer, rapist, monster, criminal, kidnapper and terrorist. Once the enemy is depicted as evil, inferior and not human, it becomes psychologically acceptable by people to persecute him. The psychological process of dehumanization is very dangerous for it often paves the way for violence.

In Search of An Identity

There are many historical examples of dehumanization. Before and during the Second World War, Hitler and his Nazi regime created a negative image of the Jewish people using stereotypes and propaganda. The Nazis dehumanized the Jews by naming them “inferior race” in order to make their persecution more psychologically acceptable.

After the Second World War, the Soviet Union and the United States emerged as rival superpowers and Cold War began. America used Hollywood and media in order to promote an anti-Communism propaganda. America created the negative images of the Soviet Union enemy and managed to manipulate public opinion to fear the new enemy.

When the Soviet Union ceased to exist, America needed a post-Soviet foreign devil (Said) to maintain its identity. And once again, the Western monopoly of power has dehumanized an entire group of people in order to create “a stereotypical image of the dangerous ‘Arab Other’.”

Dr. Jack Shaheen, Professor Emeritus of Mass Communication at Southern Illinois University, studied portrayals of Arabs in Western Media by examining 900 U.S. films. He writes “Arabs are the most maligned group in the history of Hollywood. They are portrayed, basically, as sub-human untermenschen, a term used by Nazis to vilify Gypsies and Jews. These images have been with us for more than a century.”

Hollywood has internalized the negative stereotypes of Arabs before 9/11 in order to serve the U.S imperial objectives. The Department of Defense and CIA have always been cooperating with Hollywood. Former Hollywood Reporter staffer Robb exposes In his book “Operation Hollywood: How the Pentagon Shapes and Censors the Movies” how Hollywood producers ask the Pentagon for help in making films. The department of Defense provides filmmakers with a crowd of Marines, or a Navy aircraft carrier and Blackhawk helicopters and the CIA provides filmmakers with a pile of script ideas. After all, the producers want to make money and the Defense Department wants to make propaganda (David L. Robb).

Hollywood’s representation of Arabs before 9/11 has been influenced by three major political events: the creation of the state of Israel, the 1973 oil crisis when the members of Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries proclaimed an oil embargo, and the Iranian Islamic revolution.

First, The Sheik (1921) and The Son of the Sheik (1926) were two films that depicted Arabs as savage beasts who auction off their own women. After World War II, Exodus (1960), a film based on the 1958 novel Exodus by Leon Uris, was the first movie to deal with the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. This movie highlighted the Israeli struggle against Nazi oppression and confirmed the U.S. support for Israel. After the Iranian revolution, the film Not Without Your Daughter (1990) depicted the escape of American citizen Betty Mahmoody and her daughter from her husband in Iran. The film was shot in the United States and Israel. The film highlights the return of Iran to the dark ages. After the first Gulf War and the end of the Cold War, the film True Lies (1994) directed by James Cameron, Arnold starring as Harry Tasker leads a double life, performing covert missions for the United States Government under a counter-terrorism task force called “The Omega Sector”. Harry’s latest mission in Switzerland reveals the existence of an Islamic terrorist organization group known as the Crimson Jihad, led by Salim Abu Aziz (Art Malik). And once again, Arabs were portrayed as terrorists, extremists and religious fanatics bent on destroying the world. The Rules of Engagement (2000) portrayed Arabs as extremists attacking the U.S. embassy. This movie dehumanized Arabs, which justified US Marines killing Arab women and children. These are some of the movies that depicted negative images of Arabs. After watching more than 900 movies, Jack Shaheen claims that only 50 or so had shown a neutral image of Arabs. He also says, “Each of Hollywood and Washington share the same genes”.

Conclusion

In the period before 9/11, the Western Media has developed a set of negative stereotypes depicting Arabs as enemies in order to serve the U.S. political agenda. On Sept. 20, 2001, President Georges W. Bush addressed a joint session of Congress and a national television audience to launch the “war on terror”:

“Every nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”

As Slavenka Drakulic expresses it, ‘once the concept of “otherness” takes root, the unimaginable becomes possible’. And once again, President Bush and his administration managed to convince the American public of the need to go to war with Afghanistan and Iraq.

If you’re still wondering:

  • Why most Westerners do not show empathy to Palestinian suffering
  • Why most Westerners did not stand up against the war in Iraq
  • Why most Westerners support Israel
  • Why most Westerners hate Muslims

That’s because Americans tell the best stories, they can invade a country and immediately construct a narrative justifying it (Jean-Luc Godard).

It’s time to occupy Hollywood.

 

Sources:

Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People, Jack G. Shaheen

The evolution of Hollywood’s representation of Arabs before 9/11: the relationship between political events and the notion of ‘Otherness’ - SULAIMAN ARTI, Loughborough University

The Construction of Arabs as Enemies: Post-September 11 Discourse of George W. Bush, Debra Merskin

https://www.self.ox.ac.uk/Current_Research_Students/documents/CHAPTER_2.pdf

https://www.sesamestreet.org/parents/topics/getalong/getalong05

https://www.mediaed.org/assets/products/412/studyguide_412.pdf

https://www.ibiblio.org/prism/jan98/anti_arab.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotypes_of_Arabs_and_Muslims

https://arabstereotypes.org/why-stereotypes/what-orientalism/veils-harems-belly-dancers

https://beyondintractability.colorado.edu/essay/dehumanization/?nid=1082

https://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=16888

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis#Arab_oil_embargo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_Without_My_Daughter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Lies

Filed Under: Equality, Featured, Media, Propaganda, Racism, Sexism, Women

Britain’s Press Are Fighting A Class War, Defending The Elite They Belong To

December 13, 2011 By Leave a Comment

By

It’s not just Rupert Murdoch and his crooks. All the corporate barons who corrupted our political system must be unmasked. Have we ever been so badly served by the press? We face multiple crises – economic, environmental, democratic – but most newspapers represent them neither clearly nor fairly. The industry that should reveal and expose instead tries to contain and baffle, to foil questions and shut down dissent.

The men who own the corporate press are fighting a class war, seeking, even now, to defend the 1% to which they belong against its challengers. But because they control much of the conversation, we seldom see it in these terms. Our press re-frames major issues so effectively, it often recruits its readers to mobilise against their own interests.

Crime and antisocial behaviour are represented as the predations of the poor on each other, or on the middle and upper classes. “Blonde millionaire’s wife raped in luxury home by asylum-seeking benefits cheat” is the transcendental form of a thousand tabloid headlines, alongside “Pippa Middleton’s bottom gets £1m makeover from top designer”. Though benefit fraud deprives the exchequer of £1.1bn a year while tax avoidance and evasion deprive it of between £40bn and £120bn, the tabloids relentlessly pursue the petty crooks, while leaving the capos alone.

On Monday the rightwing papers applauded government plans to cut benefits for people in social housing who have more rooms than they need. The “growing scandal of under-occupation”, the Mail observed, contributes to the housing crisis, depriving larger families of the homes they need. The Express told us that “it is only right that decisions such as this must be taken”. But what about the private sector, where there’s a much higher rate of under-occupation, especially among the wealthy? When this column suggested that these under-used homes should be taxed, the corporate press went berserk. Only the poorest should carry the cost of resolving our housing crisis.

Not a day passes in which rightwing papers fail to call for stiffer regulation of protesters, problem families, petty criminals or antisocial teenagers. And every day they call for laxer regulation of business: cutting the “red tape” that prevents companies and banks from using the planet as their dustbin, killing workers or tanking the economy.

The newspapers’ own criminal behaviour, more of which is being exposed before the Leveson inquiry as I write, looks to me like the almost inevitable result of a culture that appears to believe that the law, like taxes and regulation, is for little people. While portraying the underclass as a threat to “our” way of life, the corporate papers ask us to celebrate the lives of the economic elite. Saturday’s Telegraph devoted most of a page to a puff piece flogging the charming jumpers being sold by a Santa Sebag-Montefiore (nee Palmer-Tomkinson) from her “white stucco Kensington House”. She works – if that’s the right word for it – with someone she met at Klosters, where she and her family “ski with the Prince of Wales and Princes William and Harry”. So far they have managed to sell 40 of these jumpers, which somehow justifies an enormous photo and 1,400 breathless words.

I mention this sycophantic drivel not because it is exceptional but because it is typical. A friend who used to work as a freelance photographer for the Telegraph stopped when he discovered that most of those he was sent to photograph were the well-heeled friends and relatives of people on the paper. Journalism is embedded in the world it should be challenging and confronting.

These papers recognise the existence of an oppressive elite, but they frame it purely in political terms. The political elite becomes oppressive when it tries to curb the powers and freedoms of the economic elite. Take this revealing conjunction in the Daily Mail’s leading article on Saturday: “David Cameron yesterday finally said no to the European elite – vetoing plans for a treaty that included an EU-wide tax on financial transactions.” In other words, Cameron said yes to the British elite. But it cannot be explained in those terms without exposing where power really lies, which is the antithesis of what the rightwing papers seek to achieve.

As the theologian Walter Wink shows, challenging a dominant system requires a three-part process: naming the powers, unmasking the powers, engaging the powers. Their white noise of distraction and obfuscation is the means by which the newspapers prevent this process from beginning. They mislead us about the sources of our oppression, misrepresent our democratic choices, demonise those who try to challenge the 1%.

Compare the Daily Mail’s treatment of the Occupy London protesters, confronting the banks, to its coverage of the camp set up by people of the charming village of Meriden, confronting some gypsies. “Desecration, defecation and class A drugs” was the headline on the Mail’s feature article about Occupy London. Published on the day on which the City of London began its attempts to evict the protesters, it deployed every conceivable means of vilifying them and justifying their expulsion.

The Mail’s Meriden story, on the other hand, was headlined: “Adding insult to injury: now villagers who have protested against an illegal travellers’ camp for 586 days are told: YOU are facing eviction.” The story emphasised the villagers’ calm fortitude and the justice of their cause. Presumably they don’t defecate either.

Press barons have been waging this class war for almost a century, and it has hobbled progressive politics throughout that time. But the closed circle of embedded journalism is now so tight that it has almost created an alternative reality.

Ten days ago, for example, the Spectator ran a cover story that could not have been crazier had it been headlined: “Yes, Father Christmas does exist, but he’s been kidnapped by lizards”. A serial promoter of mumbo-jumbo called Nils-Axel Morner, who claims he has paranormal dowsing abilities and that an iron-age cemetery in Sweden is in fact the Hong Kong of the ancient Greeks, was given 1,800 words to show that sea levels are not rising. Citing “evidence” that was anecdotal, irrelevant or simply wrong, explaining that it was all a massive conspiracy, Morner ignored or dismissed a vast wealth of solid data from satellites and tide gauges.

The Spectator kindly gave me space to write a response last week, but it strikes me that a story like this could not have been published five years ago. It first required a long process of normalisation, in which evident falsehoods are repeated until they are widely believed to be true. The climate talks in Durban were slotted by the papers into the same narrative, in which climate scientists and the BBC conspire to shut down the economy and send us back to the stone age. (And they have the blazing cheek to call us scaremongers.)

It’s not just Murdoch and his network of sleazy crooks: our political system has been corrupted by the entire corporate media. Defending ourselves from the economic elite means naming and unmasking the power of the press.

 

Source: https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/12/britain-press-fighting-class-war

Filed Under: Corruption, Media, Propaganda, United Kingdom

The Inmates Don’t Know It’s An Asylum

December 12, 2011 By Leave a Comment

There is a line from Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead which we have always enjoyed. It is stated by the main villain of the story – Ellsworth Toohey – in a one-sided conversation in which he is explaining that he was always after political power and never hid his ambitions but nobody wanted to “believe it”. The quote goes like this: “Never bother to examine a folly. Ask yourself only what it accomplishes.”

Lenin had a different take on the same problem faced by all would be power mongers. He knew he had to be reasonably obvious in what he told the people about his plans and goals. But not too obvious. He knew he had to tailor his pitch so that it would have the maximum amount of resonance with the maximum number of unthinking people. He doted on such people. He called them “useful idiots”.

Today, the “movers and shakers” of the financial world abound in such useful idiots. It has been a long road from the 1930s Keynesian mantra that “we owe it to ourselves” to today’s masters of the universe with their incomprehensible computer “algorithms” fuelled by the ability of modern computers to crunch almost unlimited sequences of “1s” and “0s”. The entire road has been paved with one goal in mind. To convince the “people” that the only road to financial “safety” is to give up their thinking processes and “delegate” them to those who claim to know what they are doing.

The problem today is that the results of this delegation are so obvious that the methods of those who produced them are beginning to be questioned. It has been a long time coming.

When we reach a market situation where nobody wants to play unless the game is terminally rigged, then the whole idea of “markets” has gone by the boards.

Nobody wants to “punt” unless their bets are guaranteed in advance. That’s no way to run a horse race – or a global financial system.

 

Source: https://beforeitsnews.com/story/1493/350/The_Inmates_Don_t_Know_It_s_An_Asylum.html

Filed Under: Politics, Population, Propaganda, Psychology, Tyranny, Violence, War Tagged With: ,

Morocco: Seven People Were Burned In Protests Against Oppression In 2011.

December 12, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Friday 09/12/2011, the Moroccan authorities reported the death of Muhammed Suleiman street vendor Rushd hospital in Casablanca, having burned his own body to protest the heavy police oppression.

The Arab world has been at the limit of endurance, with respect to heavy repression that you receive from your government. Execute arbitrary laws and almost no convictions that the accused has the right to defense.

The example of Tunisia in January a street vendor had their goods taken by the security forces have seen no alternative to support her four children and wife. burned his body in front of the courthouse to protest the abuse of power and lack of government investment in economic leveling of the population.

Yesterday, the Moroccan authorities reported the death of Muhammed Suleiman street vendor Rushd hospital in Casablanca, having burned his own body to protest the heavy police oppression.

According to the “February 20 Movement“, which represents the popular revolution of Morocco, the boy was selling smuggled gasoline (a common activity in the country), and he was pressured by police who threatened to take his goods if they pay a small “rate”.

Another reference is the website ”lakome“ who said the boy found himself depressed and angry, threw gasoline on his body while arguing with police who threatened to confiscate petrol prohibited until fired. According to sources, the young man died on Friday 09 December because of injuries, despite receiving medical attention.

National crisis

According to the February 20th Movement, a grassroots movement of opposition to the current Moroccan regime, even after the last elections, which were also considered “a success”, this is already the 7th incident in the country. All these desperate people, their bodies incinerated after not finding any more support in law or in society, or to consider that, through the police force, no one would care to hear their problems.

The average suicide has been between 20 and 32 years. Among these, there is a young, 20. While the population seeks to draw the attention of authorities for their needs, only the rich life and improve more and more people are living without rights. A crisis worsens and the apparent efforts to alleviate the suffering of the Moroccan people has not been sufficiently implemented, is what describes the “February 20 Movement.” According to testimony from members of the movement, most of the suicides came as a result of heavy police repression and abuse of authority. There are cases like Kamal Amri, who was killed by the system, so that seemed to suicide by fire.

The list of martyrs courtesy Ratoune Mourad political activist of Moroccan popular organization “Youth Movement February 20“:

Deaths by suicide

  • Judge Emad, 18
  • Bnkaddor horse, 25
  • Salmi beauty, 24
  • Samir Albuazawa, 17
  • Fadwa Laroui, 20
  • Shayeb Karim, 21
  • Kamal Al-Amari, 30
Killings by security forces.
  1. Alknona Hamid, 26
  2. Mohammed Bodroh
  3. Kamal al-Hassani, 28

Source: https://bloghumans.blogspot.com/2011/12/marrocos-7-pessoas-se-incendiaram-em.html?spref=fb

Filed Under: Censorship, Police, Politics, Poverty, Propaganda, Protests, Revolution, Rights, Social Unrest, Suicide, Tyranny Tagged With: , ,

Heading Towards WWIII ~ This Is The Plan Of The Ruling Elite

December 12, 2011 By Leave a Comment

 

We can avert this fate of humanity by the renewal of the Glass-Steagall Act. The passage of Glass-Steagall is as a pivotal turning point in moving America in a new direction towards the development of all nation states globally. If we don’t renew the Glass-Steagall Act then we (humanity) will meet the catastrophic event of WWIII head on … how would you like that instead?

Wake-Up-America !!

So far in my videos discussing the economic collapse of the U.S. I have left out one important element:

World War Three.

WWIII is not going to be an accident. It will not be caused by an unfortunate chain events that the U.S. struggles to avoid. It is a goal, a specific objective that must be reached in order to force a cultural shift that the population would otherwise never accept.

It is only from this context that the events unfolding in the world right now make any sense. - StormCloudsGathering

Filed Under: Military Industrial Complex, Politics, Propaganda, Surveillance, Tyranny, USA, War

US Military A Prime ‘Target’ For Home-Grown Terrorists

December 12, 2011 By Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US military is under threat in its own country as homegrown Islamic extremists, including “radicalized troops,” are treating military installations here as prime targets, US officials warned Congress Wednesday.

The only deadly terror strikes on US soil since those of September 11, 2001 have been against the military, with three separate attacks that left 17 people dead, most of them soldiers, according to a report released Wednesday at the first joint House-Senate hearing on homegrown terrorism.

US military installations since 9/11 have been the target of at least 33 “threats, plots and strikes,” more than half of the 54 homegrown jihadist plots and attacks that have occurred or been uncovered over the past decade, the report said.

“A particularly insidious aspect of the homegrown terror threat remains radicalized troops who target their fellow brothers and sisters in arms, without regard to their faith,” it said.

Republican Representative Peter King, who as head of the House Homeland Security Committee has chaired a series of hearings this year on Islamist extremism threat, lamented the “growing security threat from radicalization both internally within the military, as well as externally toward military personnel and their families residing in the United States.”

The threat by radicalized members of the US armed forces “is persistent and enduring,” he said in an opening statement to the hearing.

Paul Stockton, the assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense, pointed to the recent “increased numbers of American citizens or residents inspired by Al-Qaeda’s ideology — and the Department of Defense has become their target of choice.”

“The primary threat to (homeland) security comes from Al-Qaeda and its affiliates,” he added.

Independent Senator Joseph Lieberman said “the enemy is not a vague catchall of violent extremism, but a specific violent Islamist extremism, an exploitation and corruption, I would say, of the religion of Islam” that leaves military personnel and their families as direct targets in the United States.

Some attackers are “lone wolves” independent of any terrorist organization, while others “become radicalized in the army,” said Lieutenant Colonel Reid Sawyer, director of the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point military academy.

The US Army has emerged as a preferred target for Al-Qaeda inspired individuals in the United States, in part because “the military presents a qualitatively different target when attacked at home than when engaged in combat abroad,” he said.

In November 2009 a US Army psychiatrist went on a shooting rampage at a military base in Fort Hood, Texas, killing 13 people and wounding 32 others in what King has described as the worst homegrown terror attack in the United States since 9/11.

The suspect, Major Nidal Hasan, is being investigated for links to Islamic extremism, including his contacts with a radical cleric who blessed the killing spree.

 

Source: https://www.activistpost.com/2011/12/us-military-prime-target-for-home-grown.html

Filed Under: Military, Propaganda, Terrorism, USA

Thought Crime In Washington

December 4, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Federal employees are the only ones who know what’s happening inside the government and their voices are being silenced.

Here’s the First Amendment, in full:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Those beautiful words, almost haiku-like, are the sparse poetry of the American democratic experiment. The Founders purposely wrote the First Amendment to read broadly, and not like a snippet of tax code, in order to emphasise that it should encompass everything from shouted religious rantings to eloquent political criticism. Go ahead, re-read it aloud at this moment when the government seems to be carving out an exception to it large enough to drive a tank through.

As the occupiers of Zuccotti Park, like those pepper-sprayed at UC Davis or the Marine veteran shot in Oakland, recently found out, the government’s ability to limit free speech, to stopper the First Amendment, to undercut the right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances, is perhaps the most critical issue our republic can face.

If you were to write the history of the last decade in Washington, it might well be a story of how, issue by issue, the government freed itself from legal and constitutional bounds when it came to torture, the assassination of US citizens, the holding of prisoners without trial or access to a court of law, the illegal surveillance of American citizens, and so on. In the process, it has entrenched itself in a comfortable shadowland of ever more impenetrable secrecy, while going after any whistleblower who might shine a light in.

Now, it also seems to be chipping away at the most basic American right of all, the right of free speech, starting with that of its own employees. As is often said, the easiest book to stop is the one that is never written; the easiest voice to staunch is the one that is never raised.

It’s true that, over the years, government in its many forms has tried to claim that you lose your free speech rights when you, for example, work for a public school, or join the military. In dealing with school administrators who sought to silence a teacher for complaining publicly that not enough money was being spent on academics versus athletics, or generals who wanted to stop enlisted men and women from blogging, the courts have found that any loss of rights must be limited and specific.

As Jim Webb wrote when still Secretary of the Navy, “A citizen does not give up his First Amendment right to free speech when he puts on a military uniform, with small exceptions.”

Free speech is considered so basic that the courts have been wary of imposing any limits at all. The famous warning by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes about not falsely shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theatre shows just how extreme a situation must be for the Supreme Court to limit speech. As Holmes put it in his definition: “The question in every case is whether the words used… are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” That’s a high bar indeed.

The government versus Morris Davis

Does a newspaper article from November 2009, a few hundred well-reasoned words that appeared in the conservativeWall Street Journal, concluding with these mild sentences, meet Justice Holmes’ high mark?

“Double standards don’t play well in Peoria. They won’t play well in Peshawar or Palembang either. We need to work to change the negative perceptions that exist about Guantanamo and our commitment to the law. Formally establishing a legal double standard will only reinforce them.”

Morris Davis got fired from his research job at the Library of Congress for writing that article and a similar letter to the editor of the Washington Post. (The irony of being fired for exercising free speech while employed at Thomas Jefferson’s library evidently escaped his bosses.) With the help of the ACLU, Davis demanded his job back. On January 8, 2010, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the Library of Congress on his behalf. In March 2011, a federal court ruled that the suit could go forward.

“It’s the millions of lower-ranks, unelected federal employees who decide… how laws are carried out and the Constitution upheld.“

The case is being heard this month. Someday, it will likely define the free speech rights of federal employees and so determine the quality of people who will make up our government. We citizens vote for the big names, but it’s the millions of lower-ranked, unelected federal employees who decide by their actions how the laws are carried out (or ignored) and the Constitution upheld (or disregarded).

Morris Davis is not some dour civil servant. Prior to joining the Library of Congress, he spent more than 25 years as an Air Force colonel. He was, in fact, the chief military prosecutor at Guantanamo and showed enormous courage in October 2007 when he resigned from that position and left the Air Force. Davis had stated he would not use evidence obtained through torture back in 2005. When a torture advocate was named his boss in 2007, Davis quit rather than face the inevitable order to reverse his position.

In December 2008, Davis went to work as a researcher at the Library of Congress in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Division. None of his work was related to Guantanamo. He was not a spokesperson for, or a public face of, the library. He was respected at work. Even the people who fired him do not contest that he did his “day job” as a researcher well.

On November 12, 2009, the day after his op-ed and letter appeared, Davis was told by his boss that the pieces had caused the library concern over his “poor judgment and suitability to serve… not consistent with ‘acceptable service’” - as the letter of admonishment he received put the matter. It referred only to his op-ed and Washington Post letter, and said nothing about his work performance as a researcher. One week later, Davis was fired.

But shouldn’t he have known better than to write something political?

The courts have consistently supported the rights of the Ku Klux Klan to use extreme and hateful words, of the burners of books and of those who desecrate the American flag. All of that is considered “protected speech”. A commitment to real free speech means accepting the toughest cases, the most offensive things people can conceive of, as the price of a free society.

The Library of Congress does not restrict its employees from writing or speaking, so Davis broke no rules. Nor, theoretically at least, do other government agencies like the CIA and the State Department restrict employees from writing or speaking, even on matters of official concern, although they do demand prior review for such things as the possible misuse of classified material.

Clearly, such agency review processes have sometimes been used as a de facto method of prior restraint. The CIA, for example, has been accused of using indefinite security reviews to effectively prevent a book from being published. The Department of Defence has also wielded exaggerated claims of classified material to block books.

Since at least 1968, there has, however, been no broad prohibition against government employees writing about political matters or matters of public concern. In 1968, the Supreme Court decided a seminal public employee First Amendment case, Pickering versus Board of Education. It ruled that school officials had violated the First Amendment rights of teacher Marvin Pickering when they fired him for writing a letter to his local paper criticising the allocation of money between academics and athletics.

A thought crime

Morris Davis was fired by the Library of Congress not because of his work performance, but because he wrote thatWall Street Journal op-ed on his own time, using his own computer, as a private citizen, never mentioning his (unrelated) federal job.

The government just did not like what he wrote. Perhaps his bosses were embarrassed by his words, or felt offended by them. Certainly, in the present atmosphere in Washington, they felt they had an open path to stopping their own employee from saying what he did, or at least for punishing him for doing so.

It’s not, of course, that federal employees don’t write and speak publicly. As long as they don’t step on toes, they do, in startling numbers, on matters of official concern, on hobbies, on subjects of all sorts, through what must be an untold number of blogs, Facebook pages, Tweets, op-eds and letters to the editor. The government picked Davis out for selective, vindictive prosecution.

“The simple act of speaking out on a subject at odds with an official government position was the real grounds for his firing.“

More significantly, Davis was fired prospectively - not for poor attendance or too much time idling at the water cooler, but because his boss believed Davis’ writing showed that the quality of his judgment might make him an unsuitable employee at some future moment. The simple act of speaking out on a subject at odds with an official government position was the real grounds for his firing. That, and that alone, was enough for termination.

As any devoted fan of George Orwell, Ray Bradbury or Philip K Dick would know, Davis committed a thought crime.

As some readers may also know, I evidently did the same thing. Because of my book, We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People, about my experiences as a State Department official in Iraq, and the articles, op-eds and blog posts I have written, I first had my security clearance suspended by the Department of State and then was suspended from my job there.

That job had nothing to do with Iraq or any of the subjects I have written about. My performance reviews were good, and no one at State criticised me for my day-job work. Because we have been working under different human resources systems, Davis, as a civil servant on new-hire probation, could be fired directly. As a tenured Foreign Service Officer, I can’t, and so State has placed me on indefinite administrative leave status; that is, I’m without a job, pending action to terminate me formally through a more labourious process.

However, in removing me from my position, the document the State Department delivered to me darkly echoed what Davis’ boss at the Library of Congress said to him:

“The manner in which you have expressed yourself in some of your published material is inconsistent with the standards of behaviour expected of the Foreign Service. Some of your actions also raise questions about your overall judgment. Both good judgment and the ability to represent the Foreign Service in a way that will make the Foreign Service attractive to candidates are key requirements.”

It’s okay to blog about your fascination with knitting or to support official positions. If you happen to be Iranian or Chinese or Syrian, and not terribly fond of your government, and express yourself on the subject, the US government will support your right to do it 110 per cent of the way. However, as a federal employee, blog about your negative opinions on US policies and you’ve got a problem. In fact, we have a problem as a country if freedom of speech only holds as long as it does not offend the US government.There follows a pattern of punishing federal employees for speaking out or whistle-blowing: look at Davis, or me, or Franz Gayl or Thomas Drake. In this way, a precedent is being set for an even deeper cloud of secrecy to surround the workings of government. From Washington, in other words, no news, other than good or officially approved news, is to emerge.

The government’s statements at Davis’ trial, now underway in Washington DC, do indeed indicate that he was fired for the act of speaking out itself, as much as the content of what he said. The Justice Department lawyer representing the government said that Davis’ writings cast doubt on his discretion, judgment and ability to serve as a high-level official. (She also added that Davis’ language in the op-ed was “intemperate”. One judge on the three-member bench seemed to support the point, saying, “It’s one thing to speak at a law school or association, but it’s quite a different thing to be in The Washington Post“. The case will likely end up at the Supreme Court.

Free speech is for Iranians, not government employees

If Morris Davis loses his case, then a federal employee’s judgment and suitability may be termed insufficient for employment if he or she writes publicly in a way that offends or embarrasses the government. In other words, the very definition of good judgment, when it comes to freedom of speech, will then rest with the individual employer - that is, the US government.

Simply put, even if you as a federal employee follow your agency’s rules on publication, you can still be fired for what you write if your bosses don’t like it. If your speech offends them, then that’s bad judgment on your part and the First Amendment goes down the drain. Free speech is increasingly coming at a price in Washington: for federal employees, conscience could cost them their jobs.

In this sense, Morris Davis represents a chilling precedent. He raised his voice. If we’re not careful, the next Morris Davis may not. Federal employees are, at best, a skittish bunch, not known for their innovative, out-of-the-box thinking. Actions like those in the Davis case will only further deter any thoughts of speaking out, and will likely deter some good people from seeking federal employment.

More broadly, the Davis case threatens to give the government free rein in selecting speech by its employees it does not like and punishing it.

Morris Davis’ problem is neither unique nor isolated. Clothilde Le Coz, Washington director of Reporters without Borders, told me earlier this month, “Secrecy is taking over from free speech in the United States. While we naively thought the Obama administration would be more transparent than the previous one, it is actually the first to sue five people for being sources and speaking publicly.”

Scary, especially since this is no longer an issue of one rogue administration.

Government is different than private business. If you don’t like McDonald’s because of its policies, go to Burger King, or a soup kitchen or eat at home. You don’t get the choice of federal governments, and so the critical need for its employees to be able to speak informs the republic. We are the only ones who can tell you what is happening inside your government. It really is that important. Ask Morris Davis.

Source:

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/2011112981630635791.html

Filed Under: Censorship, Propaganda, Rights, Surveillance, Tyranny, USA Tagged With: , ,

The Media’s Blackout Of The National Defense Authorization Act Is Shameful

December 3, 2011 By Leave a Comment

The broadcast media’s ignorance and unwillingness to cover the National Defense Authorization Act, a radical piece of legislation which outrageously redefines the US homeland as a “battlefield” and makes US citizens subject to military apprehension and detainment for life without access to a trial or attorney, is unacceptable.

Guys, this is far more important than Penn State’s Disgusting Creep of the Decade, or even Conrad Murray’s sentencing.

Call it what you will: a military junta, a secret invalidation of Americans’ civil rights, a Congress gone mad. Whatever it is, it needs to be covered by the press, and quickly.

Anderson Cooper, Brian Williams, Rachel Maddow, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Neil Cavuto and the other handful of household names that mainstream America relies on for news should be talking about this non-stop.

I emailed producers and on-air talent at the three major cable news networks yesterday: not one of them was willing to step up to the plate and report on this appalling legislation, which would give Americans roughly the same protections as citizens in China or Saudi Arabia.

Bloggers and the ACLU’s analysis have already made the work easy for you guys. Even an ADD segment producer can do the math:

  • Pay special attention to Section 1031 of the bill.
  • This bill violates the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385), as it will allow federal military personnel to engage in domestic law enforcement. This is profoundly unconstitutional and scary.
  • Also read Sen. Lindsey Graham’s chilling defense of the offending provision in this bill, calling to make the homeland a “battlefield.” Has anyone told these guys that Osama bin Laden and his deputies are dead? Those still alive are running from drone strikes on a daily basis. So who exactly are we fighting against? Are you protecting us from a handful of (almost entirely peaceful) college kids at the Occupy protests? If so, martial law and throwing out 200+ years of basic civil rights seems rather excessive.
  • Finally, as the ACLU points out, you won’t have any trouble booking an expert talking head who will tell you how dangerous and counterproductive the National Defense Authorization Act is: “The Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the FBI and the head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division have all said that the indefinite detention provisions in the NDAA are harmful and counterproductive.” Book one of them on your program, and do it quickly. The Senate has already rejected an amendment which would have banned the indefinite detention provisions from the bill.

Please, do your jobs. This is the kind of story that wins journalism awards and makes careers. It’s the kind of story that makes viewers trust you.

 

UPDATE: To the mainstream media’s credit, Keith Olbermann of Current TV has now mentioned the NDAA’s harmful provision, and I’ve been told that Dylan Ratigan of MSNBC is drawing attention to it as well. A good start, but not nearly enough.

Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/the-medias-blackout-of-the-national-defense-authorization-act-is-shameful-2011-12

Filed Under: Censorship, Media, Propaganda, Rights, Terrorism, Tyranny, USA

Obama and the War Criminals

December 3, 2011 By Leave a Comment

The Republicans and Democrats play for the same team. It is all window dressing to keep us divided cheering for our ‘Red’ team or our ‘Blue’ team when in reality, they are of the same cloth. There is no change. It is the same basic message only it is now delivered with a new eloquence. If we are to put our wedge issues aside and listen to our conscience to what is just, what is right and if we are to judge a tree by the fruit it bears we can clearly see that our government is rotting on the branch. The players of each team will never enact any accountability on each other. The people of this country must demand it.

Visit: https://www.puppetgov.com

Music by: Trillion/Jody Lloyd
https://www.trillion.co.nz/

Filed Under: Crime, Politicians, Politics, Propaganda, Protests, Rights, Social Unrest, Tyranny, USA Tagged With: ,

Over 9 Hectares Of Forests Lost Per Minute: Report

December 1, 2011 By Leave a Comment

ROME - More than nine hectares of forests were lost per minute between 1990 and 2005, aperiod when the world’s deforestation rate accelerated, shows a UN survey issued onWednesday.

The net loss of forests - deforestation offset by afforestation or natural expansion - totalled 72.9 million hectares during the 15-year period, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

In other words, the net loss averaged 4.9 million hectares per year, or 9.3 hectares of forests per minute over the 15 years.

The new data also shows that the net loss of forests increased from 4.1 million hectares peryear between 1990 and 2000 to 6.4 million hectares between 2000 and 2005.

The survey also shows that the worldwide net loss in forest area between 1990 and 2005 was
not as great as previously believed, since gains in forest areas are larger than previouslyestimated.

The net loss was only two thirds of the previous figure of 107.4 million hectares, according to the survey.

The world’s deforestation averaged 14.5 million hectares per year, consistent with previous estimates.

Deforestation, which occurred mainly in the tropics, may be attributed to the conversion of forests to farmland.

“Deforestation is depriving millions of people of forest goods and services that are crucial torural livelihoods, economic well-being and environmental health,” said Eduardo Rojas-Briales,FAO Assistant Director-General for Forestry.

The satellite imagery-based survey shows that the world was covered by 3.69 billion hectaresof forests in 2005, or 30 percent of the global land area.

 

Source: https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2011-12/01/content_14196567.htm

Filed Under: Environment, Food, Health, Politics, Pollution, Population, Poverty, Propaganda Tagged With: ,
« Older Posts