NSA’s Personal Propagandist For CBS Officially Takes Counterterrorism Job Everyone Knew He Was Getting
By Mike Masnick | Techdirt | December 30, 2013
When 60 Minutes did its hack PR job for the NSA a few weeks ago, lots of people called out the fact that the reporter who handled the segment, John Miller, wasn’t just a former intelligence official working for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (which oversees the NSA), but that he was widely rumored to have worked out a deal for a new job for the NYPD, heading up “counterterrorism.” Even though there were multiple reports at the time, including one that claimed it was a “99.44% done deal,” when asked about it, Miller lied. He told a reporter, “you know as much about this as I do.”
That was clearly Miller lying — something that Miller has had an issue with in the past — as the “rumor” is now confirmed and Miller has accepted his job doing “counterterrorism” for the NYPD. And while some might say that doing counterterrorism for a city police force is different than working for national intelligence, that’s only because you’re not familiar with the NYPD, which has set up something of a shadow NSA/CIA to do all sorts of activities not normally associated with a police force.
And, of course, since the press was clearly familiar with Miller’s expected role, it raises serious questions about why 60 Minutes allowed the puff piece to move forward with a seriously conflicted “journalist.” While Miller has lashed out at critics, rather than respond to a single point raised, the brand that comes out worst in all this is clearly CBS and 60 Minutes — which basically let an intelligence official do an entire propaganda piece on the NSA. 60 Minutes used to be about hard hitting journalism. Now, apparently, they think it’s “journalism” to shill for the surveillance state.
Let’s Not Forget The Neocons Who Cheered The Egyptian Military Into Power
By Chris Rossini | Ron Paul Institute | December 28, 2013
Earlier this year, the Egyptian military overthrew the democratically elected Mohammed Morsi. Much has happened since the initial violent crackdown on Morsi’s supporters. The Muslim Brotherhood, which has been around some 80 years, has been labeled a “terrorist organization” by the Egyptian government, and now even bloggers who speak out against the military are being jailed.
Plenty of neocons cheered the military coup from the sidelines when it occurred. With all of their flap about the US “bringing democracy to the world,” this apparently was a case where a coup was necessary.
Now that 6 months has passed, and the Egyptian military continues to flex its iron fist, let’s not forget the neocons who cheered them into power:
John Bolton on July 3: “we needed the military to stop the Muslim Brotherhood, and I think this coup was the right thing.”
Jonathan Tobin on Aug. 8: “There is more to democracy than voting, and any solution that risks giving Morsi another chance to consolidate power would be a disaster for Egypt and the United States. Washington must be prepared to stick with the military no matter what happens in the streets of Cairo.”
Michael Rubin on Aug. 16: “So long as the Muslim Brotherhood seeks to turn back the clock, impose its hateful and intolerant ideology upon Egyptians of all religiosities and religions, and refuses to abide by the pathway to transitional elections, and so long as it continues to fight in the streets, then it should suffer the consequences of its actions. And if those consequences result in exponentially higher Brotherhood casualties than army casualties, then so be it. That is the truest path to peace.”
Peter Wehner on Aug. 20: “So from the perspective of American national security and morality, having the Muslim Brotherhood in power is considerably worse than having the Egyptian military in power.”
Remember the rule: If the winner of a foreign election is someone that the U.S. government approves of: “Democracy = Good”. However, if the U.S. government does not approve of the winner: “Roll in the tanks!”
PFLP: Hamas should not abandon their ideology
Ma’an – 30/12/2013
GAZA CITY – Hamas are a vital component of the Palestinian nationalist struggle and should not abandon their ideology, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine said Monday.
The statement from the leftist group was in response to a recent call by the PLO for Hamas to dissociate itself from the Muslim Brotherhood.
“We are not calling on Hamas or other forces to abandon their ideological roots, but we ask everyone to give priority to the interests of the Palestinian people when they build relations with the surrounding Arab and Islamic world,” the PFLP said.
On Saturday, Jamal Muheisin, a Fatah representative in the PLO executive committee, said Hamas should detach itself from the Brotherhood, warning of political, economic, and security consequences if Hamas remained “subordinate” to “this banned terrorist group.”
A representative of the Arab Liberation Front said that Hamas has always prioritized the Muslim Brotherhood’s interests over the interests of the Palestinian people, while Ahmad Majdalani of the Palestinian Popular Struggle Front said Hamas was viewed as a terrorist organization by many countries including the United States due to its affiliation with the Brotherhood.
PFLP official Rabah Muhanna was one of many faction leaders who also called upon Hamas to sever relations with the Muslim Brotherhood.
Gaza government spokeswoman Isra Almodallal told Ma’an last week that while Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood may share ideology, they should not be seen as one and the same movement.
“We are in completely different circumstances,” Almodallal said. “We don’t want people to think Hamas is the same as the Muslim Brotherhood.”
“We don’t want Egypt to punish us the way the Muslim Brotherhood is punished in Egypt.”
Almodallal added that Hamas agreed that “at this particular time” it is best to remain neutral in the affairs of other Arab countries.
Related article
- PLO Urges Hamas To Sever Ties With Muslim Brotherhood (eurasiareview.com)
The cover-up police
The Shay Police Unit manage to avoid basic investigative actions – even while holding two suspects caught red-handed in custody
By Yossi Gurvitz | Yesh Din | December 29, 2013
On July 26th, 2010, Israeli civilians – some of whom were seen coming from the direction of the settlements of Yizhar and Har Bracha – went on two rampages in the Palestinian village of Burin. In the first and more severe case, they attacked and destroyed property; when the owner, Ibrahim Eid, could no longer stand watching his property go up in flames and approached the scene, they hit him over the head with an iron bar. Eid lost consciousness and had to be treated in a hospital.
During the second rampage, Israeli civilians stoned the nearby home of Bashir Hamza Zaban. Unfortunately for the hoodlums, border policemen were on the scene and spotted them. The cops chased the attackers, detaining two of them. One of the detainees chose to hide a knife in his shoe. The two refused to identify themselves, but later were identified in the police station. The two maintained their right to remain silent during their interrogation. Zaban also managed to identify a third attacker, who – unlike the detainees – was not hooded.
On its face, this is an open and shut case. Yet lo and behold: even though two suspects were arrested, having been caught red-handed; even though one of them was carrying a concealed knife; and even though they refused to identify themselves – the police wouldn’t do the bare minimum, i.e. ask the victim to identify his attackers. Instead, the police closed the case, citing lack of evidence.
Hold on, the epic screw-up of this case is just beginning. Despite the fact that Zaban noted in his statement to the police that he was aware of the attack on Eid, and although he gave the police a disc containing photos of the attack on Eid, the police took their sweet time and summoned Eid for a statement in November of 2010, a mere five months after the incident. After all, we all know that the memory of witnesses just improves as time passes by.
We’re not done yet: Eid, in his statement to the police, noted the existence of the disc, containing quite clear images of the Israeli civilians who attacked him, who can be easily identified. Even so, the police – who had had the disc since July – didn’t bother summoning him to a lineup so he could point out his attackers; hence, it naturally did not summon any of them for an interrogation. And to top it all off, the police closed the case in December 2012 – after two years and five months of doing little investigative work – but only bothered to inform us, who represent the victims, in August 2013.
Such phenomenal incompetence, which would not surprise anyone familiar with the SJPD (‘Samaria and Judea’ Police Department), generally has two plausible explanations. The first is that the cops and their superiors are complete failures at their duties. The second is that they’re not that dumb, in fact they’re quite smart: we can assume they have a good reason to believe that if they do their jobs properly, they will be harmed. Some of them, after all, live among the population they’re charged with investigating. So they do a half-assed job, ignore evidence, silence nasty questions, and bullshit their way through the closing of a case, hoping no one pays attention.
Such a police force is the hallmark of dark regimes. The SJPD has been functioning this way for years. Anyone who thinks that these investigators, when re-posted within Israel proper, will not retain the work norms developed beyond the ‘separation’ wall, is deluding herself. As for us, once we lifted our jaws off the floor, we appealed the decision to close this case. We hope that the embarrassing negligence of the SJPD will force the prosecution to act. We’ll keep you informed.
Related article
- While you were sleeping…. (imemc.org)