[Peace-discuss] Glenn Greenwald: Helen Thomas interrupts Obama talking about Neda video to ask a real question

Wed Jun 24 22:22:35 CDT 2009

I disagree.  Her question cut straight to the heart of the matter:
 publishing photos or videos of unjust practices by any government
challenges their power and puts pressure on them to end them.
Governments
try to suppress damning evidence because it challenges the power structure.
 If the Iranian government could have prevented the Neda video from going
viral, I'm sure they would have.  Why should we let our government do the
same?
The main similarity between the Neda video and the torture photos is
that it puts a face on the victims,
as well as a thousand words about their
fate.  If this upsets people...isn't that the point?  We are in general too
shielded from truth and consequences.  Bombings are "surgical".  They kill
"militants" with no names or faces.  If people were forced to see the
consequences of our military decisions....well, you remember what happened
in Vietnam.

John

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Jenifer Cartwright <jencart13 at yahoo.com>wrote:

> As much as I adore GG, I agree w/ the WH on this one. The parallels are
> betw current crack down on protesters in Iran and w/ the US's Kent State and
> possibly Seattle and certainly civil rights protests in the 60s (and e g
> Tienemen Sq in China, etc, etc, etc).
> The supression of the torture, etc photos is something entirely different,
> the lessons of their publication being Salman Rushdie and the Danish photos
> multiplied by an incalculable amount... ergo the advisability of NOT
> publishing them, imho. That being said, there MUST be investigation of- and
> consequences for those at all levels who are responsible.
> And meanwhile, can we PLEASE end these damned US wars??? Hardly anything
> about protests against those in the news these days, despite heartbreaking
> stories every day, speaking of appalling...
>  --Jenifer
>
>
> --- On *Wed, 6/24/09, E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag>* wrote:
>
>
> From: E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag>
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Glenn Greenwald: Helen Thomas interrupts Obama
> talking about Neda video to ask a real question
> To: "John Fettig" <john..fettig at gmail.com>
> Cc: "peace-discuss" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> Date: Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 1:51 PM
>
>
> The fact that "we" (who ever that "we" is) find the Neda video shocking and
> iconic is a testimony to how far the once great American society has fallen.
>
> That's not to minimize the loss or the sorrow or the shame or the heroics
> of the dissenters.
>
> We are unfamiliar with Patriots and Tyrants resisting one another unto
> blood, and are shocked and mortified (vicariously) that real social change
> does actually require such a price.  In fact, it is the collective and
> individual unwillingness to pay the price for a real government that
> accounts
> for the ersatz clown posse of looters that Americans seem to be willing to
> accept as "government".
>
> The tree of liberty demands frequent watering with the blood of tyrants and
> patriots.
> Those unwilling to see the price paid are both unworthy patriots and indeed
> rather silly tyrants as well.
>
> On the other hand, the utter depravity of torture and the stifling of
> dissent and the trashing of the Constitution doesnt
> put Americans in very good position for pointing out the faults of other
> nations.
>
> *Quo usque tandem abutere, America, patientia nostra*?
>
> One about half expects some thief to slip up on somnambulent America, and
> collectively render unto it the equivalent of being hit over the
> head with a "sock full of shit" as Patton warned.  The other half expects
> the blessed event to provoke some loud and raucous cheering among
> those from whom we have well-deserved calumny and dishonour.
>
> It's not the only possible outcome, but it's the most likely we can't
> muster enough numbers and gumption to force real change not this Obacrap
> parsed
> with emphasis.
>
>
> On 6/24/2009 1:17 PM, John Fettig wrote:
>
> http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/24/photos/index.html
>  The "Neda video," torture, and the truth-revealing power of images*The
> President's remarks on the images of Iranian violence are in conflict with
> his suppression efforts at home.*
>
> *Glenn Greenwald*
>
> Jun. 24, 2009 |
>
> *(updated below - Update II - Update III)*
>
> The single most significant event in shaping worldwide revulsion towards
> the violence of the Iranian government has been the video of the young
> Iranian woman bleeding to death, the so-called "Neda video."<http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/21/iran.woman.twitter/>
> Like so many iconic visual images before it -- from My Lai, fire hoses and
> dogs unleashed at civil rights protesters, Abu Ghraib -- that single image
> has done more than the tens of thousands of words to dramatize the violence
> and underscore the brutality of the state response.
>
> For the last question at his press conference yesterday<http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/23/politics/main5107407.shtml>,
> Obama was asked by CNN's Suzanne Malveaux about his reaction to that video
> and to reports that Iranians are refraining from protesting due to fear of
> such violence.  As Obama was answering -- attesting to how "heartbreaking"
> he found the video; how "anybody who sees it knows that there's something
> fundamentally unjust" about the violence; and paying homage to "certain
> international norms of freedom of speech, freedom of expression" -- Helen
> Thomas, who hadn't been called on, interrupted to ask Obama to reconcile
> those statements about the Iranian images with his efforts at home to
> suppress America's own torture photos ("Then why won't you allow the photos
> --").
>
> The President quickly cut her off with these remarks:
>
>  THE PRESIDENT: Hold on a second, Helen. That's a different question.
> (Laughter.)
>
>  The White House Press corps loves to laugh condescendingly at Helen
> Thomas because, tenaciously insisting that our sermons to others be applied
> to our own Government, she acts like a real reporter (exactly as -- according
> to *Politic**o*'s Josh Gerstein<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24087_Page2.html#ixzz0JHNOMKTP&D> --
> White House reporters "could be seen rolling their eyes and shifting in
> their seats" when Obama called on*The Huffington Post*'s Nico Pitney, who
> has done some of the most tireless work on Iran, gave voice to actual
> Iranians, and posed one of the toughest questions at the Press Conference).
> The premise of Thomas' question was compelling and (contrary to Obama's
> dismissal) directly relevant to Obama's answers:  how is it possible for
> Obama to pay dramatic tribute to the "heartbreaking" impact of that Neda
> video in bringing to light the injustices of the Iranian Government's
> conduct while simultaneously suppressing images that do the same with regard
> to our own Government's conduct?
>
> The reason Thomas' point matters so much is potently highlighted by a new
> poll from *The Washington Post*/ABC News released today<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_062209.html?sid=ST2009062304056> --
> not only the responses, but even more so, the question itself *(click to
> enlarge image)*:
>
>
> <http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/SkIN8s-_saI/AAAAAAAAB8o/IfOUn4CieS8/s1600-h/torture.png>
>
> Half of the American citizenry is now explicitly pro-torture (and the
> question even specified that the torture would be used not against
> Terrorists, but "terrorist *suspects*").  Just think about what that says
> about how coarsened and barbaric our populace is and what types of abuses
> that entrenched mentality is certain to spawn in the future, particularly in
> the event of another terrorist attack.  But even more meaningful is the
> question itself -- it's now normal and standard for pollsters to include
> among the various questions about garden-variety political controversies
> (health care, tax and spending policies, clean energy approaches) a question
> about whether one *believes the U.S. Government should torture people (are
> you for or against government torture?)*  That's how normalized torture
> has become, how completely eroded the taboo is in the United States.
>
> It would be one thing for the Obama administration to argue that there is
> no value in releasing torture photos specifically, and in investigating and
> imposing accountability for past abuses generally, if there were consensus
> among Americans that torture is wrong, barbaric and -- as Ronald Reagan
> put it <http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/01/shifts/> (
> hypocritically<http://www.democracynow.org/2005/2/18/promoting_the_ambassador_of_torture_bush> but
> still emphatically) -- "an abhorrent practice" justifiable by "*no
> exceptional circumstances whatsoever*."   But we have the opposite of that
> consensus:  we have an ongoing debate over torture that is fluid, vibrant
> and far from settled, with half the population embracing the twisted and
> morally depraved pro-torture position.  For that reason, to suppress
> evidence of what our torture actually looks like and the brutality it
> entails -- particularly graphic evidence -- is to make it easier for that
> pro-torture position to thrive, just as it would have been easier for the
> Iranian Government to slaughter protesters with impunity if they had
> succeeded in suppressing the images of what they were doing (it was this
> same dynamic that led the Israeli Army to defy its own Supreme Court and forcibly
> block reporters and photographers from entering Gaza<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/world/middleeast/07media.html> and
> which caused the embedded American press to suppress images of the massive
> civilian deaths<http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/04/truths-consequences-by-digby-since.html>which
> their protectors, the U.S. military, was causing in Iraq).
>
> Americans are able to perceive torture clinically and in the abstract when
> they're able to endorse it without seeing its effects.  They're able to
> delude themselves that the extreme abuses at Abu Ghraib were unauthorized
> aberrations -- rather than the inevitable by-products of the policies they
> support -- because the photos showing that those abuses were systematically
> applied at American detention facilities around the world are being
> suppressed.  It's almost certainly true that few pro-torture Americans are
> aware that the policies they support -- and that were approved at the
> highest levels of the U.S. government -- have led to numerous detainee
> deaths, because investigations into such matters are being blocked; court
> proceedings impeded; and media discussions confined almost exclusively to
> questions about "water in nostrils."  If Americans want to endorse
> government torture, they should not be allowed to avert their gaze from what
> they're causing and be spared the facts and details of what is done.
>
> * * * * *
>
> On a related note, the critique I wrote<http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/22/npr/index.html> of
> the NPR Ombudsman's defense of their decision not to use the word "torture"
> has been discussed<http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/calling-it-torture.html>
>  in numerous places<http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/examining-runes-by-digby-greenwald-has.html>.
> There has also been an outburst of angry (though highly substantive and
> civil) criticisms from NPR listeners in the comment section of her column<http://www.npr.org/ombudsman/2009/06/harsh_interrogation_techniques.html>.
>  As a result, we're in the process of inviting the Ombudsman, Alicia
> Shepard, to appear with me on *Salon Radio* to discuss her rationale.
>  Ostensibly, the Ombudsman is not meant to be a spokesperson for NPR but a
> voice of NPR listeners.  I would hope, then, that she'd be willing to engage
> and discuss the reaction which her column triggered (at the very least in
> her column, though even better, in an interactive discussion).  I will post
> updates of any responses we receive to the invitation extended to her.
>
>
>
> *UPDATE*:  The media<http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0609/Obama_calls_on_HuffPost_for_Iran_question.html?showall>
> -manufactured<http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/sluggahjells/2009/06/cbs-mark-knoller-does-senseles.php?ref=reccafe> (and,
> as always, right-wing-fueled<http://www.memeorandum.com/090623/p69#a090623p69>) pseudo-controversy
> over Obama's "pre-coordinated" selection of *Huffington Post*'s Pitney to
> ask a question is revealingly inane for many obvious reasons:  Pitney's
> question was one of the most adversarial Obama was asked, and the
> establishment media reaction clearly stems from resentment over their
> perceived status being undermined by allowing *The Huffington Post* and,
> more to the point, an actual Iranian (rather than a self-anointed
> reporter-spokesperson for Iranians) to ask the President a question.
>
> But equally revealing is their self-glorifying and delusional belief that
> only establishment media reporters are sufficiently Serious to be entitled
> to ask the President questions -- even as they fill Press Conferences with
> petty, vapid questions and otherwise endlessly reveal themselves to be
> substance-free and frivolous.  Along those lines, *The Washington Post*
> claimed<http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/the-purge-of-froomkin-.html>that
> "budgetary constraints" played a role in the firing of actually serious
> journalist Dan Froomkin, yet *The Post* spends money to produce and
> promote things like the below-posted video<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHwyEbuWeso> from
> "reporters" Dana Milbank and Chris Cillizza that has to be seen to be
> believed.  Be forewarned:  many will consider the video too petty to bother
> posting and virtually everyone will find it painfully irritating to watch.
>  I agree with those assessments, but there is still something about it --
> the oozing smugness, the view of politics as a juvenile game, the
> desperation to be above it all and too sophisticated to care, the total lack
> of self-awareness in failing to realize how embarrassingly unfunny it is --
> that makes it a *tour de force* in illustrating what and who so much of
> the Washington media really are:
>
>
>
> *UPDATE II*:  We were told by NPR that the Ombudsman is out of the office
> this week and her office will get back to us by Monday with a response.
> Additionally, someone from the Ombudsman's office also just left the
> following note in the still-growing comment section to her column<http://www.npr.org/ombudsman/2009/06/comments/harsh_interrogation_techniques.html>:
>
>
> Dear Listeners;
>
> Ms. Shepard is out of the office this week. I work closely with her and
> have been keeping up with all of your comments. Rest assured that when she
> returns she will respond to you.
>
> In the meantime, I wanted to let you know that there is someone on the
> other end reading and receiving your phone calls and emails.
>
> Best,
>
> Anna Tauzin
>
> Office of the Ombudsman
>
> The feedback and pressure are obviously having some effect.  I hope it
> continues; I would look forward to the opportunity to discuss Shepard's
> column with her in an interview.
>
>
>
> *UPDATE III*:  Bridging Update I and Update II:  the *Post*'s Dana Milbank
> was, completely unsurprisingly, one of the leaders in objecting to the *
> Huffington Post*/Pitney question<http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_06/018747.php>.  He's
> probably best advised to stick to *Post*-funded vaudeville videos.  *The
> Nation*'s Ari Melber has an excellent analysis<http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/445637> of
> the petulant, self-absorbed objections as part of this empty little scandal
> of the day.  This empty chatter is the sort of thing with which they
> endlessly occupy themselves -- all while condescendingly scorning Helen
> Thomas' real questions and acting as though questions from *The
> Huffington Post *are a major threat to their protocols of journalistic
> Seriousness.
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing listPeace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <http://us.mc449.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net>http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net<http://us.mc449.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net>
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090624/38c4d5e3/attachment-0001.htm