The notion that "we found no WMDs in Iraq" was Pentagon propaganda. We found over 5,000 chemical warheads, most from before 1991. Why would the Pentagon cover this up? Who made the decision, who followed the decision, and for what reasons?
The author, John Paul Williams, has no previous history at the New York Times and I cannot find a journalist with that name. This makes me wonder if this is a pseudonym and/or if he is a spook or a Pentagon officer himself. [EDIT]: Tang can't read. Williams is apparently the photographer credit on an image that isn't showing up in my browser. The author is C.J. Chivers.
Authorities in Osceola County, Florida put muckraking journalist Charlie Grapski in a mental institution to prevent him from covering the situation in Ferguson, Missouri. After calling him into the county office to finish some paperwork, they sent a SWAT team to arrest him while he was on the phone with his lawyer.
Followup #1: The Internet shitstorm mentioned earlier is still going on and got a boost today from Breitbart reporting on the existence of a secret mailing list (allegedly) used by gaming journalists to set agendas and decide what stories to cover and what not to.
Followup #2: In a report by the Heritage Foundation, one of the State Department officials disciplined over Benghazi accuses Hillary Clinton's aides of withholding documents from Congress.
Both reports follow a couple of patterns. In both cases we see the hard-right, ideologically biased media breaking the news about a major scandal in a widely known situation where the majority of the media have told us that there is no scandal. By inference, we see that the traditional media failed in its job to get to the story first. Also, both are about situations where the cover-up may be worse than whatever original scandal there may have been.
I believe that the failure to shine a full light on Saudi actions and particularly its involvement in 9/11 has contributed to the Saudi ability to continue to engage in actions that are damaging to the US – and in particular their support for Isis.
Graham was the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee in the 2000s. He was in a very strong position to know what he is talking about.
Whatever was in this post, the submitter was banned from Reddit for saying it. As-yet-uncensored conversation suggests that it was about "Admins being corrupt including interview with moderator whistleblower". The interview is an hour long and I haven't heard anything outrageous in a few minutes of listening. [Edit] Somewhere near the end the interviewee says that Reddit admins use "vote manipulation" as an excuse to ban people they don't like. Also, one of the moderators suspected of banning people for no good reason is Reddit's PR person.
Early last week the school board was alerted that one of its eighth grade language arts teachers at Mace's Lane Middle School had several aliases. Police said that under those names, he wrote two fictional books about the largest school shooting in the country's history set in the future ... Phillips said McLaw was taken in for an emergency medical evaluation. The sheriff would not disclose where McLaw is now, but he did say that he is not on the Eastern Shore. The same day that McLaw was taken in for an evaluation, police swept Mace's Lane Middle School for bombs and guns, coming up empty.
The book is mentioned on Google Books but otherwise the book and its author have no web presence outside of this news article.
There is a category 4 shitstorm over the Internet today as Reddit administrators have been shadowbanning users for discussing the Zoe Quinn controversy (more) (more) (more+nsfw), for discussing the censorship of the discussion, and for notifying other users that they have been shadowbanned. Rumours suggest that several other prominent websites have been deleting non-intrusive, non-offensive commentary on the subject. Encyclopedia Dramatica has a long list of websites allegedly censoring discussion of the issue, but no evidence.
In one of the more notable examples, IndieGogo's administrators shut down a fundraiser that had raised $25,000 for a feminist gamer group and embedded the video "You Are An Idiot" on the fundraising page because this group landed in the anti-Quinn camp when Quinn accused them of being anti-transsexual on the grounds of requiring that applicants be "a self identified woman". There may also be a monetary angle involved.
Both pro-Quinn and anti-Quinn factions also claim the other side has hackers breaking into their websites and stealing their identities. Cover your popcorn because this might get messier than a Gallagher show.
[Edit] Fixed the KYM link. Added another summary timeline.
- Antagonist - An actor who plays the Dark Lord in a video game is forced to team up with an actual hero who wants to kill him. The game takes longer to download than it does to play, but it's worth it just for the humor.
- Robots Initate Work Sequence - A time management game similar to the base-building side of RTS games. The concept looked boring at first glance, but I couldn't stop playing.
- Solarmax 2 - A space strategy game like like Intergalactics or Konquest with very good ambiance.
- Sunken Spire - The core of the game is a routine series of themed levels, but if you step outside of the dungeon for a moment you'll see a richly developed game world and a pair of sidequests that are more interesting than the main story.
- Touhou: Wandering Souls - A fan-made action RPG with enough variety in monsters and their attacks that it does not get old, and the music is pleasant to listen to. For an action game, it is surprisingly relaxing.
The NSA figured out a way to deny my appeal regarding my request for information about the PAIC (see earlier). Their new line is that "the appropriate response is to neither confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence of the information" even when required by law to do so, and this is expressed as a blanket policy for all FOIA requests received by the NSA.
This latest Fuck Off is signed by E. R. Brooks, chief of staff and FOIA/Privacy Act Appeal Authority. This is probably Elizabeth R. Brooks, who has done this before.
Two attendees of the Popular Arab and Islamic Congress were Yasser Arafat and Abdul Majeed al-Zindani. Zindani is the founder of Yemen's al-Islah movement, whose members include Tawakkol Karman. So if one considers the PAIC as an al-Qaeda meeting -- I call it their global launch party -- then al-Qaeda has won two Nobel Peace Prizes.
The government’s "Cash for Clunkers" program – pitched as a plan to jump-start U.S. auto sales and clean up the environment by getting gas-guzzling vehicles off the road -- may have been a clunker itself, according to a new economic study.
As evidence for this conclusion, the article goes on to say that people traded in their big gas-guzzling vehicles for small fuel-efficient cars. In other words, the program worked exactly as intended. Fox calls it a failure because the small cars are also cheaper, so the auto industry made less money than they could have if people were buying big expensive gas guzzlers instead.
A couple of retired FBI agents formed a short-lived group, the Foundation for Ethics in Public Service, to investigate allegations of corruption within the FBI. That organization's web site now redirects to the FBI.
That group was: ( membership list inside the cut )
So this organization was literally a couple of retired FBI agents and a bunch of businessmen with no apparent relationship to the FBI. That looks even more suspicious than their website redirecting to the FBI.
Faisal Gill, the
director of intelligence policy policy director of the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection unit at the Department of Homeland Security, had previously worked for al-Qaeda frontman Abdurahman Alamoudi. That does not make him a bad guy; he could have been one of ours spying on Alamoudi's people. It does make one wonder just what the hell was going on over there.
This came to my attention now because Glenn Greenwald published a list of people under investigation by the NSA, Gill was the first name on the list, and I Googled him. This investigation is being framed by Greenwald as an injury to liberty; it is supposed to somehow be wrong that the government got a warrant to eavesdrop on the communications of a guy with a known direct connection to al-Qaeda. The position of Greenwald and his echo chamber is that these people should be immune from investigation for their connections to al-Qaeda because they happen to be Muslim. What the hell is going on over there?
Edit Aug. 12: On rereading the article, Gill was policy director of the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection division.
The Dar Al-Maal Al-Islami (DMI) Trust is one of several suspects whom authors have accused of funding the September 11 attacks of 2001, yet were found innocent in their trials. There have been several cases like this in the US and Europe where either the authors were working from bad information or their good information was inadmissible in court or the defendants had bought really good lawyers or judges. The past leaders of DMI have included al-Qaeda organizer Hassan al-Turabi, and Muslim Brotherhood leader Yusuf Qaradawi was an early advisor. This is enough evidence to bomb them, but not to win a conviction in a court of law.
In 2010, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed all claims against the two companies, ruling that the plaintiffs had shown nothing to indicate that they ever did anything more or less than engage in routine banking services ...
On April 16, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the rulings of the Southern District, holding that DMI Trust and DMI S.A. did nothing more than, at most, providing routine banking services to persons later deemed to be suspected of connections to terrorism, and thus that the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim against DMI Trust or to establish jurisdiction over DMI S.A.
Dismissal at district court
I was unable to find the first dismissal on the Southern District web site. Google was unable to find any mention of "Dar" or "Maal" there. I did find the ruling elsewhere. Here is the entirety of the ruling as regards DMI:
Defendant Dar Al?Maal?Al?Islami Trust ("DMI Trust") is alleged to be part of a network of financial institutions that provide money laundering, and financial and banking services on behalf of al Qaeda. Plaintiffs allege that DMI Trust knowingly maintained accounts for al Qaeda front charities, including AHIF thereby facilitating the funding of al Qaeda. Defendant is also alleged to have actively sponsored al Qaeda through the actions undertaken by its purported subsidiaries. Mere allegations that defendant provided routine banking services, and of wrongful conduct committed by independent subsidiaries, are insufficient to subject DMI Trust to liability in this litigation. Its motions to dismiss are, therefore, granted.
This sounds like the plaintiffs failed to show that the subsidiaries were acting under direction from above or that the directors of DMI were part of the same conspiracy. The judge was George B. Daniels and the case In Re Terrorist Attacks.
Appeals court ruling
The appeals court ruling is available and it is an interesting read that explains the difficulties in applying tort laws to those who support terrorists. The judges in the appeals decision were Jose Cabrenes, Reena Raggi, and Jed Rakoff. Cabrenes is also a FISA court judge, and Rakoff is a district court judge from the Southern District of New York sitting by designation.
- In dismissing O'Neill's claim under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 USC § 1350 which covers any "violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States", the court finds that "plaintiffs’ ATS claims are without merit because no universal norm against 'terrorism' existed under customary international law". In other words, the court ruled that 9/11 was not a war crime.
- In forbidding torts of aiding and abetting, the court cited Rothstein v. UBS AB, a decision by Jed Rakoff and upheld by Amalya Kearse, which held that UBS bank had no civil liability for violating sanctions against Iran. This appears to be well supported by the lack of the plaintiffs' showing proximate cause, by the federal aiding-and-abetting statute 18 USC §2 referring specifically to crimes against the United States and not to civil torts, and by a Supreme Court finding in Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank of Denver that "Congress has not enacted a general civil aiding and abetting statute․."
- O'Neill's claim of extrajudicial killings under the Torture Victims Prevention Act was rejected on finding that the TVPA was written to apply to "individuals" meaning natural persons and not corporations. This is also well supported.
Quote of the day and of the years:
The gap between now and "Marge vs. the Monorail" is larger than the gap between "Marge vs. the Monorail" and the fall of Saigon.
There's a guy who puts out an annual list of things that high school freshmen will not be able to relate to, but I can't find a link to it.