Video: The Prisoner

In his first primetime interview on American television, a former
detainee in U.S. prisons abroad tells NOW a disturbing story alleging
kidnap, torture and murder.

British citizen Moazzam Begg, who spent three years in captivity at
American detention facilities in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,
gives us a rarely seen intimate view of a detainee’s life inside the
prisons of the ‘war on terror.’

Begg describes a beating he witnessed while being held at a U.S. prison
in Bagram, Afghanistan. “I saw his body being dragged in front of me,
battered and bruised, limp,” Begg said.

	Program Resources: » Video » Listen to this show [mp3] » Transcript » Print » E-mail this page to a friend

Taken suddenly from his home one night in Pakistan, Begg was imprisoned
without any charges ever pressed against him. He spent almost 20 months
in solitary confinement at Guantanamo, and he said there was no doubt
that the Geneva Conventions did not apply there or at any of the other
U.S. foreign prisons where he was held.

NOW’s David Brancaccio traveled to Begg’s hometown in Birmingham,
England to find out how a Muslim man from an educated, middle-class
family ended up in an a street gang and grew entangled in militant
Islamic politics.

The 37-year-old husband and father of four was accused by the U.S. of
having “strong, long-term ties to terrorism,” an allegation he firmly
denies. Although he was set free from Guantanamo last year having never
been found guilty of any crime, the U.S. government is adamant that his
detention was justified.

As for the remaining 450 Guantanamo prisoners, Congress is working to
hack out new laws for trying terrorism suspects after the Supreme Court
ruled last month that international law does apply to “enemy
combatants.”

Begg recalls a conversation about Guantanamo prisoners that he had with
a security guard at the detention camp. “One of the guards, what they
said to me is that, ‘Hell, if I wasn’t a terrorist when I came here I
would be by the time I was released because of what had been done to
me.'”

CAN THE WASHINGTON TIMES SURVIVE?:

The Washington Times gets picked up every day on C-SPAN, and by other major news organizations when it scores a big hit.

But for a paper that only has a daily circulation of just 90,000
with inflated numbers, can that marvelous respectability continue?

The paper for years has been a beacon for both conservative and
liberal readers for its own take on the news of the day and the
direction of our culture.

Conservatives love it, liberals may hate it, but as President Bill
Clinton told me personally when I was still a reporter for The Times,
“I read you every day to see what you’re saying about
me.” That was respect from a man who hated The Washington Times,
but he said he felt he had to read The Washington Times every day to
find out what the other side was thinking and doing.

But can that conservative-liberal, love-hate scenario that once made
the low-circulation Washington Times work as a pacesetting newspaper
continue?

Can The Washington Times survive and continue to be a beacon of the
conservative view of America, its politics and culture, that all can
look to with respect for a complete daily report from its own
perspective?

I doubt it, because of a festering internal civil war within the
company, featuring ideological and abusive micro-management by senior
TWT editors, backed by the founder’s top corporate manager at The
Washington Times Corp., that has driven out the newspaper’s best
people over the past five years, and continues to drive people out.

The latest brain-drain victim in late December 2006, just before
Christmas, was Washington Times Corp. Vice President Jonathan Slevin,
executive assistant to company CEO Douglas M. Joo. Slevin told
inquiring news organizations that he left voluntarily — but I’m told
confidentially by several of Slevin’s close co-workers that he felt
forced to leave after months of extremely intolerant abuse and
rejection of him by Joo.

Slevin, according to people who know him best, just gave up and
refused to continue accepting a paycheck from a company for whom he had
worked for a quarter century because its current CEO, Joo, was a
tyrannical maniac who listened to nobody except a coterie of
arse-kissers who weren’t helping better the perpetually
money-losing situation of the company.

I have known Jonathan Slevin for more than a quarter century, but he
understandably did not want to talk to me about this situation for a
publicly posted piece.

Let me just say as a person who has dealt with Slevin over many
years in different situations, some of them quite complex, involving
difficult personalities and circumstances, that Jonathan Slevin is one
of the finest, nicest, most erudite, capable, calm, kind, sensitive,
and fair individuals I have ever dealt with, ever. He always gave his
all to his employer and the job at hand.

For Jonathan Slevin to leave his post at The Washington Times
executive offices abruptly, without a thank-you normally accorded to
any longtime employee right down to the switchboard — albeit nicely
saying he was leaving to finish a book — tells all who know Jonathan
that something was terribly wrong in the way he departed or was forced
out. Everybody who knows Jonathan Slevin knows what I am saying is
correct. This man is a saintly man, and I know in my heart that he has
been wronged. So herein lies the greater story.

As the first reporter hired at The Washington Times outside the
founding group, and a 21-year veteran who received four Pulitzer Prize
nominations from the newspaper for investigative reporting,  I
found from talking to people at all levels of the company after I left
in September 2005 that the newspaper now has just a small cadre of
reliable, experienced reporting talent. There has been a huge exodus of
capable reporters and editors on all desks and at all levels over the
past several years. Why?

The Washington Times can no longer claim to be the premiere
conservative pacesetting newspaper in the Nation’s Capital, which
it was in the 1980s and 1990s, because it is no longer breaking big
exclusives and blockbuster stories that overcome its puny circulation,
despite its claimed access to powers in the Bush administration and on
Capitol Hill.

The Wall Street Journal, which has both excellent editorial and news
pages and a seasoned feisty staff in Washington that dwarfs the news
and opinion product of The Washington Times every day. So does National
Review magazine online, the weekly Human Events tabloid, rigidly
ideologically conservative but factually dependable for breaking out
important domestic and foreign news stories for readers across the
country, and liberal media outlets – The Washington Post, New
York Times, and Los Angeles Times.

Broadcast competition such as Fox News on the conservative side, CNN
on the liberal side, and BBC, NPR, and PBS on the middle-left of the
ideological spectrum also are constantly beating the socks off The
Washington Times, both on the news side and in their editorial opinion
offerings. Why?

MORE…

Salon: Cinema to Savor (watch a short ad for site pass) 

Rolling Stone:  Best and Worst of 2006 Movies

via About.com: American Film Institute (AFI)’s Best Films of 2006  

Time Magazine: 10 Best Movies of 2006

LA Times: Best of 2006 by Kenneth Turan

MSNBC: Best of 2006; Worst of 2006 

Once Upon a Time…

Just STFU, Chait

Oh, Jonathan Schwarz! Yoo-hoo! You, sir, are a prevaricator!

That’s what I first thought when I read this post,
and the excerpt from Jonathan Chait’s latest column that Jonathan
Schwarz included. “No,” methinketh, “Chait couldn’t possibly have said that! That [to use Jonathan S.’s apt phrase] is dangerously insane!”

But then I thinketh on it more. “Jonathan S. is one smart guy. I mean, really smart. (And funny! Never forget the funny. Buy his book.) He couldn’t have misread Chait that badly, even if Chait is
dangerously insane.” So I read Chait’s column. Chait actually, truly,
as real as the blinding pain in my head when I contemplate the fact
that Chait is a columnist published in the freakin’ Los Angeles Times and Jonathan S. and I aren’t, said it. Chait burbles:

[Jonathan]
Schell insisted [in 1990] that we could force Iraq to leave Kuwait with
sanctions alone, rather than by using military force. But the years
that followed that war made it clear just how impotent that tool was. Saddam
Hussein endured more than a decade of sanctions rather than give up a
weapons of mass destruction program that turned out to be nonexistent.
If sanctions weren’t enough to make him surrender his imaginary
weapons, I think we can safely say they wouldn’t have been enough to
make him surrender a prized, oil-rich conquest.

[Irrelevant
note to self: Why is everyone in this post named “Jonathan”? Well,
except Saddam. And me. Does this mean anything?]

Read Jonathan S. on these burbles from The Snake Pit. I have a few comments of my own to add.

Let’s take Chait’s deeply offensive opening paragraph:

I
DON’T WANT to accuse American doves of rooting for the United States to
lose in Iraq because I know they love their country and understand the
dire consequences of defeat. But the urge to gloat is powerful, and
some of them do seem to be having a grand time in the wake of being
vindicated.

The magnanimity toward “American doves” is
overpowering, like the stench of rotting corpses. And that, you
miserable son of a bitch, is the point. Those of us who opposed the war and occupation of Iraq wanted to avoid all the unnecessary
deaths and maimings that have resulted from our actions, and from our
damnable “war of choice.” Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and
tens of thousands of Americans are dead and maimed because of what we
have done. Most of us don’t give a damn about gloating: we want the killing to stop. We wanted it never to begin.

Speaking only for myself, I disavow the term “dove,” since it is obviously intended only as a smear. If Chait means to denote pacifism,
I am not aware of any significant public figure who opposed the Iraq
war whom it would fit. There may be one or two, but they don’t readily
leap to mind. I recognize that war is sometimes necessary, although
extremely rarely. Most of the wars the United States has fought in the
last 60 years were entirely unnecessary — including Korea,
Vietnam and, certainly and absolutely, Iraq. (If we extend the time
line farther into the past insofar as unnecessary and deleterious U.S.
involvement is concerned, the list of unnecessary wars must begin with
World War I, which led to most of the other conflicts of the twentieth
century, and the effects of which still reverberate around the world
today, most especially in the Middle East.) For the ten millionth time:
Iraq did not attack us. Iraq did not threaten us. Both propositions
were entirely clear before the first soldier set foot in Iraq. Not one
of the deaths, and not one of the damaged lives, need have occurred.
And they should not have occurred, if one gives a damn at all about people’s lives.

The
primary motives behind Chait’s column are transparently clear: first
and foremost, he is desperately afraid that he and the many other
pundits similarly situated might actually suffer entirely deserved
consequences for having been so profoundly wrong about this foreign
policy catastrophe. This just fate is one Chait is absolutely
determined to avoid. So he is similarly desperate to denigrate and
disparage anyone who dares to call him to account. You can sense the
tremors of anxiety that wrack Chait’s body, and the sweat that pours
off him like a torrent. Think of Albert Brooks’s on-air breakdown in Broadcast News. Chait’s column is laughably pathetic. The Los Angeles Times should be mortified to have published it.

In his final paragraphs, Chait reveals that — despite his claims to the contrary, and just like Andrew Sullivan — he has learned precisely nothing from this ongoing debacle, one whose consequences will be felt for decades:

There
are many lessons to be absorbed from Iraq. We’d be foolish not to
absorb them; only the most dense war supporter has come away from the
experience unhumbled. But the failure of a criminally negligent
administration to carry out a highly challenging rebuilding task in the
most hostile part of the world does not teach us everything we need to
know about the efficacy of military power.

Of course we’ll learn lessons from Iraq. I’m worried that we’ll learn too much.

The
highlighted sentences are critical. Chait’s reference to “a criminally
negligent administration” falls within the ambit of the first major
error I discussed here: “Trapped in the Wrong Paradigm.”
Chait does not object to the fact that we began an immoral and illegal
war of aggression, in defiance of international law and minimal norms
of conduct abroad. He objects only to the fact that the occupation has
been managed “incompetently.” If it had been managed “well,” he would
have no objection at all. War criminals have been hanged for less.

The other critical phrase is this one: “the efficacy of military power.”
And there is the awful truth: what Chait seeks to preserve above all
else is positive belief in “the efficacy of military power.” More
directly: whenever he and the other hawks again decide the time is
right, he wants to be sure they can do it again.

That’s all. That’s the whole thing. They want to do it again.
Maybe not next year, but sometime. Less than three decades separate the
final withdrawal from Vietnam from the invasion of Iraq. We were
supposed to have “learned” the lesson about aggressive, non-defensive
wars from Vietnam. We didn’t. And the hawks are determined that the
lesson will escape us once more, even after Iraq.

Whether it’s
Iran, North Korea, or somewhere else, they’ll tell you the next war is
necessary for our self-defense, just as they did about Iraq. It won’t
be true next time either, just as it wasn’t true in the case of
Vietnam, Iraq or World War I. But they are determined to be able to do
it again.

No one is “gloating,” Chait. We want only one thing:
we want you to stop preaching about the glories of war, and “the
efficacy of military power.” We want you to stop killing people and
ripping bodies apart when you don’t have to. With very, very rare
exceptions, you never have to.

To put it more simply: we
want you and the other warmongers to shut the hell up. Since you won’t
and because your “dangerously insane” burbles unaccountably continue to
see the light of day, we want to make sure that fewer and fewer people
listen to you, or believe one word you write or speak.

May the day come when no one listens to you at all. May it come very, very soon.

posted by Arthur Silber

powered by performancing firefox

Amazon:

Years ago I was shopping for CD’s at a pawn shop and the owner/salesman
remarked that he hated live recordings, and I was genuinely surprised.
I had never thought someone would really exclude live shows from their
collection. Now, I know studio and live recordings are different
animals, even if they share the same skin, but a live recording comes
closer to revealing a band’s real ability and character (alot harder to
hide the flaws under the big lights). And I also know that what many
bands pass off as live today is in fact lipsynched-enhanced play by
numbers stuff. So amid the rough and poorly done recordings and the
slick and fake shows I guess I can understand this guys ambivelance.
But then again he doesn’t know what he’s missing……If I had to
eliminate most of my collection (saving one box for the life-raft), I’d
keep the live recordings. Here are the ones I’d take…..

My
favorite bands are those that do it best live. And while many have
better quality studio recordings some are really only great live – THE
RADIATORS Earth vs. The Radiators: The First 25 is one, THE GRATEFUL DEAD Europe 72, The JERRY GARCIA BAND After Midnight: Kean College, 2/28/80,
< ASIN: B000003CKL>, are others. Many “jambands” are way better
live than when scrutinized by the light of day, such as WIDESPREAD
PANIC Live in the Classic City, A String Cheese Incident, BLUES TRAVELER Live From the Fall, and GONG Floating Anarchy Live 77.

Lets look more closely at some really good classic live recordings;
PAUL BUTTERFIELD East-West Live (A great example of having to get past the inferior recording quality to find the masterful performance).
FRANK ZAPPA’s Roxy & Elsewhere, the complete Helsinki show from later in that 1974 tour You Can’t Do That On Stage Anymore – Vol. 2, at his zenith The Best Band You Never Heard in Your Life, and at his last The Yellow Shark.
ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND (then) At Fillmore East and (now) One Way Out
LOU REED Rock N Roll Animal.
JIMI HENDRIX Live at Winterland
LITTLE FEAT’s definitive Waiting for Columbus
BOB DYLAN Bob Dylan Live 1975 (The Bootleg Series Volume 5)
THE BAND The Last Waltz
DAVE MATTHEWS The Central Park Concert
NEIL YOUNG Weld (2 disc set)
MUDDY WATERS Muddy “Mississippi” Waters Live
ERIC CLAPTON Unplugged

Then there are less well known recordings but amazingly powerful;
MACEO PARKER Life on Planet Groove
PHIL MANZANERA’s 801 Live
JOHNNY WINTER Second Winter
THE FLECKTONES Live Art
GOV’T MULE Deepest End (with Bonus DVD)
NORTH MISSISSIPPI ALLSTARS Hill Country Revue: Live at Bonnaroo
Old & In the Way
Buena Vista Social Club
Remember Shakti: Saturday Night in Bombay

As well as these obvious jewels there are a bunch of fine recordings from famous and obscure artists;
DAVID LINDLEY Live in Tokyo
(a good stand-in for the better EL RAYO X -Live! – (1986), and current
collaberation with WALLY INGRAM – Live in Europe! – (2003), available
on his website)
RICHARD THOMPSON Small Town Romance (a good stand-in for his more recent “Ducknapped” – 2003 US tour with band, available from his website)
KELLY JOE PHELPS Tap the Red Cane Whirlwind (solo 2004 recordings in California)
MARTIN SIMPSON Live
TONY FURTADO Live Gypsy
SONNY LANDRETH Grant Street
DEREK TRUCKS Live at Georgia Theatre
ROBERT RANDOLPH Live at the Wetlands (Dig)
JOHN PRINE Live on Tour
WARREN ZEVON Learning to Flinch
GREG BROWN The Live One
CHRIS SMITHER Live As I’ll Ever Be
EVA CASSIDY Live at Blues Alley
KATE WOLF Give Yourself To Love (Volumes 1&2) (Live In Concert)
ALISON KRAUSS Alison Krauss & Union Station – Live
DAN HICKS Where’s the Money?
GUY CLARK, TOWNES VAN ZANDT, STEVE EARLE Together at the Bluebird Café….
as well as others too numerous to list; JOHN HIATT (Comes Alive at
Budokan), JOHN MCLAUGHLIN, PACO DELUCIA, AL DIMEOLA (Friday Night In
San Francisco), HARRY MANX (Road Ragas), PHIL LESH AND FRIENDS (There
and Back Again, with a nice bonus live disc, similar to current music
from THE DEAD), JAZZ IS DEAD (Great Sky River, live instrumental covers
of Dead songs), FROGWINGS (Croakin’ At Toads), FUJI MARINERS (Live),
ROXY MUSIC (Viva!), KING CRIMSON (USA and Great Deceiver box set)),
CARAVAN (BBC Radio 1), BRAND X (Livestock),HENRYCOW (Concerts), SANTANA
(Sacred Fire, Live in South America), BOB MARLEY (Live At The Roxy),
BIG HEAD TODD AND THE MONSTERS (Live Monsters)….

I guess to
sum it up,if you like an artist get their live recordings, shop around
for the best performance and sound quality and you’ll see how good they
really are. At least you’ll get to imagine or remember being there, and
thats way more fun than imagining being in the studio!

powered by performancing firefox

CROOKS AND LIARS VIDEO FEEDBACK

I’ve had some issues with Flash on linux off and on so I prefer either .wmv or .mov. But v. 7 Beta seems to be working on youtube at the moment so I suppose it usually could be OK.

One thought. I was reading a 2 part article on trying linux as a web designer’s platform and was surprised that a lot of the comments were favorable about their own experience. One of the good things noted was that a person became standards conscious grounded in Firefox first and _then_ wrote the exceptions for IE.

In the same way, would it be possible to routinely try the vids on linux first as the acid test on the assumption that if they work, they should be good for everybody? That way you might frequently be a version behind but at least you would retain audience.
smchris

powered by performancing firefox

Users of 64-bit unix machines will not be able to read flash as Adobe does not support them. You are effectively cutting off the uber geeks by not including a format that can be read on these platforms

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/crooks/100112997

powered by performancing firefox

 Los Angeles

Just days after Cincinnati-based indie radio station WOXY.com announced that a lack of funding would silence it for good, the founders of dollar-a-disc trading site lala.com swooped in to save the day. Almost a month after returning to the airwaves, the partnership with lala intends to expand WOXY’s beloved live broadcasts, “Lounge Acts,” to include sessions from San Francisco, New York, Austin, and other hubs of musical ingenuity. Registered lala members can also generate podcast-style radio stations of their own from over 150,000 tracks in a forthcoming Citizen Radio feature. Until then, 165 beta stations like the Anglophiliac Britpop Mainstays & Requisites or the eclectic Alternative Algebra (and, of course, WOXY itself) crank out jams you’d never hear on a clock radio.

-IB

powered by performancing firefox

Video-WMP Video-QT

Will: Baghdad is the problem and while we
debate what to do in Baghdad, the Shiites are changing the facts on the
ground in Baghdad through incremental—not at all
stealthy—rather rapid ethnic cleansing. So we may get a
monochrome Baghdad out of this which would be ahhh, sad, but perhaps
tranquilizing.