Italian Journalist Giuliana Sgrena to...
AMY GOODMAN: Giuliana Sgrena, can you remind us what happened when you were released? From the point, well, that you learned you were going to be released -- first who you were held by and then what happened, all the way through the shooting on your road to the airport?
GIULIANA SGRENA: Yes, when I was released, Calipari came to pick me up, and we were on the road to the airport, after, of course, giving the news to the person that were interested in, and we were on the way to the airport. It was dark, because it was night. And at a certain point, we were not so far from the airport, when they started to shoot us. At the beginning, I couldn’t understand who was shooting, because we were in the area controlled by the Americans, and I couldn’t believe that the Americans, they were shooting to us. There was Italian agents with me. So, really, it was really a shock.
And immediately, when they started to shoot, Calipari stopped to talk, and I realized that something was going wrong, because he didn’t speak to me. And the agent that was driving the car started to shout and to say that we were Italian, we were of the Italian embassy, just to try to stop the shooting. And when the shooting stopped, I saw that Calipari was killed. Me, I was wounded, and also the other agent. So, it was really a big shock.
But there were no warnings before the shooting. And the shooting, they reached the car, and they were, after -- we can say now, after the inquiry, the Italian inquiry, because there was an Italian inquiry of the Italian justice, that against the car was shooted fifty-eight bullets, and fifty-seven bullets were against the passengers of the car and only the last one against the engine of the car. So if they wanted to stop the car, they had to shoot to the engine or to the wheels, but not to the passengers. And that’s why the Italian justice asked the trial for Lozano for voluntarily killing of Nicola Calipari. That’s the point. It’s not only my testify now; it’s the conclusion of the Italian justice inquiry.
Oct 31st
It was a joke (we think)
Reporter: Mr. President, following up on Vladimir Putin for a moment, he said recently that next year, when he has to step down according to the constitution, as the president, he may become prime minister; in effect keeping power and dashing any hopes for a genuine democratic transition there ...
Bush: I've been planning that myself.
Oct 18th
Let‘s turn now to constitutional lawyer...
OLBERMANN: Of that which needs to be done, how much would this Responsible Surveillance which is Overseen Review Effective Act or less painfully, RESTORE Act how much fixing would this bill actually accomplish?
FEIN: The main untold story is that the president continues to claim he has an inherent constitutional power to flout any law that Congress enacts even one that he proposes. That means he‘s claiming the power not only to intercept our e-mails and conversations but to break and enter homes, open mail, even commit torture in the name of gathering foreign intelligence.
And this is a claim that Congress has declined to repudiate, not only in the old statute but in the new statute that‘s proposed. So it really does nothing with regard to trying to restrain the president‘s unfettered exercise of authority to gather foreign intelligence.
Moreover, it doesn‘t seek to confine the new statute to to gathering intelligence related to fighting international terrorism which was its initial justification.
Foreign intelligence under the law includes everything from discovering what the negotiating position of the French are in having movies enter the French domestic market to rainforests in Brazil to the incidence of AIDS in South Africa. This bill has not confined the new powers to gathering intelligence against international terrorism.
Lastly, the bill represents an entire capitulation to the administration‘s claim that no longer does the Fourth Amendment requirement that you have an individualized suspicion that an American is engaged in some kind of terrorism or acting as a foreign agent before a warrant is issued in order to obtain foreign intelligence that there is sort of a blanket warrant, exactly the kind of warrants that King George III used against American colonists and provoked the Declaration of Independence.
Oct 12th
Ex-U.S. Official in Iraq on Iraqi...
JUAN GONZALEZ: You mention in your article one particular ride in the town of Irbil, where they actually -- the Blackwater security group in front of you actually rammed a civilian car?
JANESSA GANS: Yeah, that was the most poignant and infuriating incident for me, because we were approaching this car -- it was clearly a family in front of us, an older gentleman driving and probably his wife beside him and his three children in the back seat -- and as we approached, I just saw the children's eyes get wider and wider and their mouths agape with terror, and we started honking furiously, because in our speeds, we didn’t want any obstacles in our way to get from point A to point B, and there was really nowhere for them to go, because it was a very narrow road. And as we were swerving to kind of go around them, we hit their car into the barrier on the side of the road, because they didn’t get over in time.
And I just was so shocked that this was an innocent family puttering down the road. Was it really necessary to damage their vehicle? Were they such a threat? And the answer I got back was even more disturbing, that this was a product of their training. “Ma'am, we’re viewed to see any obstacle, any vehicle, as a possible terrorist decoy, as a threat, and that’s what we do. We're completing our mission to get you from point A to point B, and that’s our job.”
Oct 11th
Doug Rushkoff on the Technologies of...
Jon: In the anti-marketing school of thought, they talk about creating great customer experiences and triggering word of mouth. In all this, I suppose the "customer" or "consumer" is just another statistic. Hard to be authentic with people you're seeing as aggregate numbers, and not as human beings.
I've been hanging out with people who want to transform economic thinking – build an economy based on sustainability... "economics as if people mattered," as Schumacher said. How do we get to that kind of transformation? It feels like we have to sell, but selling it is sort of antithetical to the intention.
Doug: I don't think you can do it without first revealing the underlying biases and false assumptions of the money we're using.
Centralized currency -- invented during the Renaissance, really -- favors the kinds of business practices and centralization of power that actually works against good, honest, local commerce. In short, it favors Wal-Mart over, say, Community Supported Agriculture.
There are other kinds of money – and they were in existence until they were outlawed by kings and queens looking to centralize authority. Money that is lent into existence by a central bank will tend towards scarcity and competition. Money that is earned into existence by people in a specific place has very different properties, and works on a model of abundance.
Even sacred economic doctrines, like the law of competitive advantage, are based on a series of assumptions. The models that prove their effectiveness, for example, assume 100 percent employment. And that just isn't the case in the nations that signed onto NAFTA and other open-market agreements.
So the first step is to separate commerce from the very specific commercial and economic architecture created specifically to favor corporations and promote competition for scarce resources.
Oct 9th