Libya & Syria: Dueling Rally Photofinishs

BREAKING: Mummar Qaddafi has been indicted by the International Criminal Court at the Hague. For an idea of why read this eyewitness report that has recently emerged about the murder of an estimated 700 unarmed and peaceful demonstrators in Tripoli in the opening days of the uprising. Friends and family still don't know the fate of about 14,000 people state security disappeared from Misrata. After Tripoli falls, the state security records will be revealed and the full extent of Qaddafi's crimes will be a matter of public record. Then the complete bankruptcy of Qaddafi supporters such as ANSWER will be clear to one and all.

Saturday I asked ANSWER supporters for their help in the hopes of settling a dispute that arose among Kossacks commenting on my diary a few days ago:

Ian, the ANSWER REBUTTAL to my criticism says

the people of Libya, who just had a massive 250,000 person march against the NATO bombing this past week

This was ridiculed in some of the comments to my DailyKos dairy today, people brought it up because my diary included a video of a demo of 200,000 in Hama on Friday. They said stuff like:

Where is video of that 250,000-1 million... (6+ / 0-)
...person demonstration in support of Gaddafi that sources say occurred on either June 17 or June 20 and that ANSWER responder talked about? Surely, SOMEbody among the hundreds of thousands in Libya with cellphones took a photo of it. Surely the Gaddafi government would consider such a demonstration a propaganda coup. And yet not one single photo or even 15 seconds of video on the alleged demo.

It's still being photo-shopped. (3+ / 0-)

You'll never see a video of it because the Gaddafi Regime can't even muster more than a hundred paid protestors in Tripoli anymore.

That bit of propaganda from the answer guy reminds me of the incident where Gaddafi Regime Libyan state tv showed footage from anti-austerity protests in London and stated that it was a demonstration against the U.N. intervention in Libya.

The problem is that nobody is going to believe a quarter million people demonstrated in Libya unless they can see some video, even cell phone video, especially a pro-gov't rally. Not in this day and age.

I've looked myself on YouTube and other sources but haven't been able find video of the protest you are talking about. This controversy is really a side issue. Can you help me put it to rest? You brought it up and you have all the details as to time and place. Can you send me a link to video of the protest of which you were speaking and I promise I will post it to my blog.

Thank you in advance,

Clay

Sunday morning LB responded:

Clay,
This is the youtube that is being shown: Mass pro-Gaddafi, anti Nato-Rebels Demonstration in Tripoli, June 17, 2011 and it does appear to be filmed from a cell phone. There was a report by Reuters but only the audio goes through as if the video footage had been censored out.

By the way, from the Reuters audio, it does appear that a large demonstration occurred on that day. Ironically, Reuters says "thousands march in pro-Gaddafi rally" while a rally is not a march and in the very short audio strangely states that it was "a few thousand people"...

The fact that the Reuters video is not functional leads me to suspect that it has been censored and disguised as a technical problem. A proof that Gaddafi, who for months has been described as having no support in the population is firmly in power and gathering a large rally in his support does not fit the US and NATO imperial powers story line for successful intervention and impending recolonization.

Now, after spending this first beautiful Venice Summer Sunday hunkered down in front of my computer, I think Reuters got it just about right. There was a pro-Qaddafi rally of several thousand supporters in Tripoli on Friday, June 17th.

As to the great Reuters audio only cover up theory, I found no problem with the video thank you. I would embed it here but Reuters has that turned off. You can watch it on YouTube however: Thousands march in pro-Gaddafi rally in Tripoli

And Reuters was right about something else too. A pro-Qaddafi rally is also a march. After studying these two videos recommended by LB plus a number of others I found on my own today of this June 17th event, I have been able to discern a certain order to chaos of thousands of Qaddafi supporters in Green Square

A sort of grid like structure to the crowd can be discerned, with men, many wearing white hats, often with arms folded form squares and corridors and the people are marching around in them.

This is the first video he recommended to me. The one "that is being shown" by Qaddafi supporters that "does appear to be filmed from a cell phone."

Well I could see right away that this was no cell phone video in spite of it having the generally low resolution and poor quality of a cell phone video. It was edited and from footage taken at different times from different angles, and it had captions.

Here is a screenshot from that video @ 00:49:20


My own search for video documentation of Qaddafi's June 17th event turned up this gem:



It turns out to be a longer version of the exact same footage as the video above. Here is a screenshot from this video @ 04:57:00


Finally I turned up what appears to be the source material for the two videos above. It is the official Libyan state TV report on the rally:



And look at a screenshot from this video @ 06:34:00


You can see that this image is of much better quality. It is broadcast quality and it is clearly the source material for the above two videos.

A peculiarity of all three of these videos is that the only audio that can be heard is Qaddafi's voice. Any sound track related to the video being shown has been completely omitted. We don't hear anything from the crowd and the actions in the video seem strangely disconnected from the audio.

This effect would be impossible to achieve with a cell phone, in fact the biggest obstacle that someone with a cell phone or camcorder would face in trying to record Qaddafi's speech would be the roar of the crowd.

Since it clearly has been professionally edited one has to wonder why the sound track of the people in the square was dropped entirely. This is not what most editors would have done. You want some crowd noise and especially crowd reaction to make it feel more, well more real. Why is it missing here?

In any case, there aren't enough people being shown in Green Square in this footage to backup any claims of hundreds of thousands let along a million, as claimed in yet another video:



Based on the same footage. This is not a tight as the others. I didn't download it, convert it to an editable format and load it into an editor so that I could catch precise frames like with the others. I just got it close enough in the browser and did this screenshot:



I also un-Earthed a CNN report on this rally:




In David McKenize's reporting in the piece we can see a few seconds of the rare independent footage of this rally. In it we can see men with automatic weapons working the crowd.

After that we are treated to more of the very same Libyan state TV footage. You would think that they would want CNN showing original footage they shot of the main rally, but no. Here is a shot from the CNN broadcast laid over the same shot, but wider, from Libyan state TV.


So it is claimed by Qaddafi and his supporters that a pro-Qaddafi rally took place in Tripoli on Friday, June 17th, 2011 and between 250,000 and 1 million people took part. This is a government supported and government sponsored rally and yet we can only seem to find one filming of it spun into many video productions.

Why aren't there dozens or even hundreds of what really is cell phone videos available of this rally?

By contrast, consider this anti-government rally that took place on the very same day in Hama, Syria. This screenshot from one video shows a lot of people on rooftops filming it with their cell phones:



So as you might expect, a cursory search of the web for cell phone videos of this rally turn up lots of unique videos that really do show something like tens of thousands of protesters. And this is under the conditions of extreme repression and very limited Internet access now existing in Syria.

Go figure...







Here are the links to my articles at WL Central:
2011-06-22 No Libyans allowed at ANSWER Libya Forum
2011-04-13 Doha summit supports Libyan rebels
Current Events in Libya
2011-03-11 Who's running Egypt?
Libyans are spilling their blood for us all!
2011-02-24 Arming Gaddfi
2011-02-14 Senior Egyptian army officers ordered massacre
2011-02-13 Tales of Tyrants: Ben Ali, Mubarak & Suleiman
2011-02-12 Algeria Protesters Defy Ban, Demand Change
The Mubarak Screw Up & the Suleiman Danger
2011-02-10 Mubarak is Defiant
2011-02-10 Mubarak Expected to Step Down!
2011-02-09 The Google Search for Wael Ghonim
2011-02-08 The New Egyptian Normal: Thousands Demonstrate in Cairo, Alexandria
2011-02-06 Tunisia's Revolution Continues
2011-02-04 Tunisian Anonymous activists take on Egyptian cause
2011-02-04 Protesters roar back with "Day of Departure" for Mubarak
2011-02-03 Algerians plan Feb 12 protest against 19- year-long state of emergency
2011-02-01 Jordan's King Sacks Government as Protests Grow
2011-02-01 Tunisian Islamic Leader Returns as EU Freezes Ousted President's Assets
2011-02-01 Army Vows Not to Shoot as Protesters make Million Man Marches in Cairo, Alexandria Today [UPDATE: 2]
2011-01-30 Million Egyptian Protest Planned as Resistance Continues
2011-01-29 No Internet? No Problem! Anonymous Faxes Egypt
2011-01-28 In Jordan Thousands Demand New Government
2011-01-28 Mubarak Refuses to Step Down!
2011-01-28 Egypt is on Fire!
2011-01-27 Libya is in Revolt as Gaddafi Worries
2011-01-27 Algerians Plan Big Protest Rally for February 9th
2011-01-27 Tunisia Protests Continues as a Warrant is Issued for Ben Ali
2011-01-27 Tens of Thousands Rally in Yemen, Demand Change
2011-01-27 Mubarak Blinks as Egyptian Protests Continue for 3rd Day



Here is a recap of my other DKos diaries on the Internet, North Africa and Anonymous:
Are they throwing babies out of incubators yet?
Continuing Discussion with a Gaddafi Supporter
Boston Globe oped supports Gaddafi with fraudulent journalism
Doha summit supports Libyan rebels
Current Events in Libya
Who's running Egypt?
Amonpour Plays Softball with Gaddafi
Californians Support North African Revolts
Google Supports Revolts | Anonymous does too!
Secret U.S. Intelligence Source on Middle East Revealed !
Arming Gaddfi
Are "mutinous officers" are being executed in Egypt now?
Algeria's 19 year long State of Emergency to end soon, President says
Senior Egyptian Army Officers Ordered Massacre!
Tales of Tyrants: Ben Ali, Mubarak & Suleiman
UPDATE: Egypt's Mubarak Has Resigned! - The Mubarak Screw Up & the Suleiman Danger
BREAKING: Mubarak is Defiant
The Google Search for Wael Ghonim
Tunisia's Revolution Continues
Google Goes Rebel, Supports Egyptian Protest
Tunisian Anonymous activists take on Egyptian cause
Protesters roar back with "Day of Departure" for Mubarak
Act Now to Stop Mubarak's Thugs From Killing More! w Petition
Act Now to Stop Mubarak's Thugs From Killing More!
They Should Have Helped That Street Vendor
Million Egyptian Protest Planned as Resistance Continues
Huffington Post Disses the Jasmine Revolution Redux
No Internet? No Problem! Anonymous Faxes Egypt
Egypt is on Fire!
North African Revolution Continues
Egypt Protests Continue, Tunisia Wants Ben Ali Back
BREAKING: Protesters Plan Massive "Day of Wrath" in Egypt Today
Tunisians Thank Anonymous as North Africa Explodes
Huffington Post Disses the Jasmine Revolution
Tunisia: A Single Tweet Can Start A Prairie Fire!
Anonymous plans Op Swift Assist in Tunisia
Arrested Pirate Party Member Becomes Tunisian Minister
Is Libya Next? Anonymous Debates New Operation
Tunis: This Photo was Taken 66 Minutes Ago
The WikiLeaks Revolution: Anonymous Strikes Tunisia
EMERGENCY: DKos Must Act Now to Protect Tunisian Bloggers!

An Open Letter to ANSWER

So far we have been talking about Libya, NATO, Cynthia McKinney and whether or not my headline No Libyans allowed at ANSWER Libya Forum was a faced lie. Now I want to change the subject. !Not

Please look at this video of thousands of people demonstrating against the Syrian government in Hama after Friday pray yesterday. Some estimate the crowds to be as many as 200,000. And this after Assad has killed over a thousand for protesting his rule and more than ten thousand have fled across the border to Turkey.

Can you imagine the courage of these people? How can you deny these people and call yourselves progressive, let alone revolutionary?

Please look at the video. No you must look at it. This is not some weird NATO/CIA psyops, this is the leading edge of the liberation movement today. Ditto Libya.

ANSWER answers me

Yesterday I received the following email to my announce-only email list as ANSWER's rebuttal to yesterday's diary No Libyans allowed at ANSWER Libya Forum. Since that list is announce-only, [send email to vah-ao@LinuxBeach.net with "subscribe" in the subject line to join] I will publish the ANSWER rebuttal here, together with my response. This is, after all, my diary. The ANSWER rebuttal is the parts in block quotes. They are broken up by my responses, email-reply style, but other than that it is complete and as they sent it.
Click here to follow me on Twitter

Hello:

In the spirit of openness and the ability to respond to organizational attacks, I ask that you approve the attached email, which is a response to a slanderous attack by one of your list members, Clay Claiborne, on ANSWER Coalition and Cynthia McKinney.

Thanks,
Ian Thompson
ANSWER

Hello all:

I strongly disagree with the tone and intentions of this opinion article, written by Clay Claiborne. In the interests of clarity, although I am not a member of all of these email lists, I will respond.

Its sympathies appear to lie with those who openly support the U.S./NATO war on Libya.

I openly support the people's liberation movement in Libya. Those familiar with my DailyKos blog know I first did so in writing on 18 Jan., months before NATO started bombing. ANSWER on the other hand has never supported the Arab uprising in Libya or Syria. I still support the Free Libya movement even after NATO intervened. My focus is on the Libyan people. They see as the next necessary step in their liberation being rid of Qaddafi. Let's see below what Ian has to say about the Libyan people and their struggle for freedom. So far he only speaks of the U.S./NATO war on Libya. That's his US centered focus.

But, political line aside, the article is full of patent distortions, mischaracterizations and shoddy analysis from start to finish. It's headline and main assertion that there were "no Libyans allowed at ANSWER Libya forum" featuring Cynthia McKinney is a flat-out lie. I suppose the headline was meant as a false, but catchy "attention grabber" since the writer even admits that several pro-war Libyans participated in the Q and A inside the anti-war event.

Facts are stubborn things, and I've already described what I witnessed in my article, and Ian is right about plenty of video, so I'll let the facts speak for themselves. See also:

ANSWER thugs bar Libyans from Cynthia McKinney event: report
Video: Libyans prevented from entering Cynthia McKinney’s talk hosted by ANSWER LA
RAW,"Eyewitness Libya", Libyans prevented from entering Cynthia McKinneys event
ANSWER Coalition supporters tell Libyans to "go back home"

First for some context on the event, the Eyewitness Libya Forum sponsored by ANSWER and featuring Cynthia McKinney Los Angeles was a very successful event. It drew over 200 people, and 60% to 70% of those were African Americans. 95% of those who came were anti-war, anti-U.S./NATO intervention.

Here's a brief report on the forum on the ANSWER LA website:
http://www.answercoalition.org/la/news/eyewitness-libya-event.html
The feedback from nearly everyone who came was overwhelmingly positive. Here's an email we got from an Arab American activist in Orange County: "It is the best event I ever attended. The event was really worth out time."

He obviously needs to get out more.

Making the miniscule number of counter-protesters outside the LA forum into the primary issue in a "report" to progressive people is ridiculous.

The only folks prevented from entering the forum were the few who came specifically to protest and disrupt the event. It wasn't because they were Libyan. Several Libyans and Arab Americans participated in the event and discussion. Some pro-war, most anti-war.

It's too bad that ANSWER couldn't find any "anti-war" Libyans for their nationwide Libya Forums. Are they just a little hard to find so far away from Qaddafi's intimidation?

I put the number of Free Libya people at 20 or so. IMHO while they did come to protest they didn't come to disrupt. I should think that ANSWER would be especially sensitive to charging protesters with disruption before the facts. In any case I don't want to argue the facts. I have provided links to videos above so that all can judge their numbers as well as their demeanor.

Here I would just like to point out that while most Libyans would see themselves separated into pro-Qaddafi and anti-Qaddafi camps, Ian separates them into pro-war and anti-war camps. In other words, it's not about what Libyans want for themselves, it's about their attitude towards US. Ian, we are not the focus of their struggle.

Also clearly by "pro war" Libyans he is referring to those that are attempting to overthrow Qaddafi. By "anti-war" he means Qaddafi and his supporters. What a wonderful way with words he has. In ANSWER terminology, those that have laid siege to Misrata for 4 months with Raf missiles and cluster munitions, those that flatten Ajdabiyah and threaten to do the same in Benhgazi, that's the "anti-war" crowd. Those that are happy to see a little relief from the slaughter, even at the hands of NATO, that's the "pro-war" crowd.

Ian, the world doesn't revolve around you. And let's be clear about another thing, the Libyan civilians killed in this War of Feb17 have overwhelmingly, and I mean overwhelmingly, been killed by Qaddafi.

The people who were outside the event, however, were not interested in civil discussion or even debate. They made themselves known at the event before it started by wearing Libya's old pro-monarchy flags,

So the Free Libya movement is both pro-war and pro-monarchy. You wouldn't be trying to demonize them would you? It is the pre-Qaddafi flag, that's why they fly it.

waving American flags at people,

I wondered at the time whether they realized that that won't win them any points with this crowd. They are in the United States after all. BTW one good habit I have learned writing for Wikileaks Central is not to use the term "American" when I mean US, because others who share these two continents with us don't like that arrogance.

wearing t-shirts featuring King Idris (the former Libyan monarch), and chanting against McKinney before trying to enter the forum. Some of them made threatening statements about McKinney. They chanted that Cynthia McKinney should "burn in the fire" and also made homophobic slurs at the line of college students and volunteers doing security for the event.

Just because I didn't see any of this doesn't mean it didn't happen, but check the videos.

Not one of them was against the U.S./NATO bombing of Libya. Not a one.

So far I have seen no support for the revolutionary movement in Libya. Does he think they don't need one because they have Qaddifi?

What does he think was going on in the months before NATO got involved? Doesn't matter, it's all about US. That's how you can tell the difference between 'good' Libyans and 'bad,disruptive' Libyans. Just ask them about NATO.

It's worth noting that Clay, the writer of this article, was with the pro-intervention crowd during much of the event, despite our invitation for him to put up a table without charge and sell his movie (which he did, I might add).

On the public sidewalk outside of the church, and without being charged by ANSWER! Gee, thanks Ian.

Others from the pro-intervention camp, those who wanted to participate with the rest of the crowd in a civil meeting, were allowed to participate in the event and speak during Q and A, just like anyone else.

And just how did you determine that?

Opposing views were not censored in any way. Several people with divergent views spoke and asked questions. It is true that the pro-intervention Libyans who spoke, along with Clay, were booed at times by the crowd, but no one from ANSWER was orchestrating that. People at the event just didn't like what they had to say. It's not too surprising for pro-intervention voices to get booed at an anti-war forum.

My question to Ms. McKinney was about Qaddafi's use of inaccurate Raf missiles on population centers and HRW reports that said he was using cluster munitions. I said nothing about NATO or intervention, so I was booed because I was anti-Qaddafi, not for being pro-NATO, which I am not.

Similarly the Libya who was booed spoke about Qaddafi. That was his concern, not NATO. You may think the only Libya issue at hand is NATO's war on Libya. Not a word is said about Qaddafi's war on Libya because you aren't anti that war. That's why you never spoke out about Libya until NATO came in against Qaddafi. You called it the Libya forum but your only concern is the NATO angle. You don't find it surprising that people including myself, that have been supporting the Free Libya movement months before Qaddafi threatened a bloodbath in Benghazi and gave NATO the excuse they needed, should be booed at a progressive Libya Forum?

Just to be clear, there is nothing wrong with keeping people out of an event after they state their intention to protest and disrupt the event. It is unwise and also a security risk. With several high-profile speakers on the panel, security was a top concern.

Also, its a complete fabrication that anyone from ANSWER ever said anything remotely pro-Gaddafi or referred to him as "brother Gaddafi." That just didn't happen. We have the video of the whole forum if you'd like us to prove it.

Your whole event was pro-Qaddafi. At least three of your featured speakers, including McKinney, heaped praise on "brother Qaddafi" What I didn't hear was any support for the uprising in Libya nor did I hear anyone from ANSWER say anything remotely anti-Qaddafi. Cluster munitions in Misrata all right with you?

The forum was an anti-war, anti-intervention forum.

It certainly wasn't a pro-Libya forum, that would take the focus off of US.

Iraq war veteran Mike Prysner spoke against the war on Libya, as did others. Two speakers did espouse their perspective of pan-African unity and expressed their respect for the Libyan leader.

Like I said, pro-Qaddafi.

They represent valid [if you say so] political currents within the Black community. In fact, nearly every speaker has divergent views on one thing or another, but they were all against the war.[and not against Qaddafi] We did not censor those who came to oppose the war on Libya at an explicitly anti-war meeting.

But you did censor those who oppose Qaddafi.

This includes Cynthia McKinney, who has now traveled to Libya twice during the NATO bombing, at great risk to her own life. [How so? Was she staying in Qaddafi's compound?] She is not a pro-Gaddafi mouthpiece in any way. She is not being paid by the Libyan government, not even a dime. In fact, part of the reason for the tour is to raise funds to pay back debts incurred by traveling to Libya on these fact-finding missions.

Then she should have gone a little more into debt. Traveled outside of Tripoli. Talked to some Libyans not under Qaddafi's control.

Debts to who? Who paid for this trip? Inquiring minds want to know. We do know that the Nation of Islam has received millions from Qaddafi so I can understand why they are supporting this tour. Why not? Qaddafi has millions to give. But no money for ANSWER, McKinney? What a shame!

The main thrust of Cynthia McKinney's talk at the Los Angeles forum was for self-determination for Libyans,

So now we get to the question of self-determination for Libyans, very late in this letter and even latter in the forum. But note that "self-determination" doesn't allow them to make their own determination about NATO 'support', in that case ANSWER will determine the proper attitude.

and to urge people in the United States to oppose the U.S./NATO war. As a former elected Congresswoman, her heroism in speaking out against the war on Libya should be lauded, not attacked without cause.

Ian goes on and on...

Finally, the "third camp" politics espoused by the article are way off base. They are out of step with people in the U.S.--who polls show oppose the war on Libya 2-to-1--and they are out of step with the people of Libya, who just had a massive 250,000 person march against the NATO bombing this past week, as bombs were dropping around them. Civilian casualties of the NATO bombing are now mounting--even the LA Times and CNN are reporting this.

Despite what the writer would have you believe, the issue isn't one's opinion on Gaddafi--it is the war on Libya, and which side are you on?

Because the war on Libya is like the war on Iraq. There was no uprising in Iraq then so there can't be one in Libya now. It's all about US.

Just as the Pentagon and press demonized Saddam Hussein before the Iraq invasions in 1990 and 2003, they have done the same with Gaddafi as a way to confuse people (and in this case, people who move in progressive circles) into being inert and not vigorously opposing the war.

We're not pro-Qaddafi but you have no right to call him a mass murderer.

The goal of anti-war activists right now seems pretty clear to me--we should be doing everything we can to expose the U.S./NATO war for what it is and building as much support as we can to stop it. There is nothing "humanitarian" about this war--there has never been, nor will there ever be a humanitarian intervention by the U.S., NATO or the UN in their current forms. A short look at history confirms this: Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yugoslavia and so on.

For 10 days NATO warned pro-Qaddafi forces against launching missiles into Misrata. They warned, but did nothing to stop him. Today the people of Misrata are cheering because NATO finally blew up the ammo dumps from which the pro-Qaddafi forces [your side Ian] have been raining down missiles on the city. That is what you want to put a stop to. That is more important now than what NATO is doing in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somali combined. Hence this tour. Or could it be that there was someone willing to pay the freight for this tour?

This article by Clay does not help build a stronger movement against the war on Libya.

But that's not my mission. I am trying to help build a revolutionary movement. I am trying to help the Libyan people oust Qaddafi. Which is to say help build a stronger movement against the Qaddafi war on Libya.

It appears to attempt the opposite. It's beyond me why we would chose to spill more ink denouncing ANSWER, an anti-war group, while saying almost nothing against the war on Libya. Unfortunately, the article's tone is nothing new. The now right-wing Christopher Hitchens similarly (but more eloquently) attacked those of us who unequivocally opposed the Iraq war before the catastrophic U.S. invasion and occupation. Look at Hitchens now!

That is way out of line! Now you are getting personal and nasty! You can call me all these other names. That's politics and I understand. But to imply that Christopher Hitchens is a better writer than me... You call that civil discourse?

He then goes on...

In general, it doesn't give anti-war folks more credibility to side with to pro-war forces and go along with demonization campaigns mounted by the U.S. and NATO to justify a war of aggression. Sure, people who are pro-war have the right to be pro-war, but anti-war activists don't have to agree with them or give them a platform on which to speak. The pro-war opinions have been aired ad nauseum in the corporate media. Meanwhile, the war on the people of Libya continues to rage on. Bombs continue to drop. Civilians continue to die in this unjust war for oil and strategic regional domination.

ANSWER will continue to speak out and organize against the war on Libya. People who want to oppose the war can do so with us. We don't have to agree on everything as long as we oppose imperialist intervention and support the right of oppressed nations and people's to self determination. On July 9, ANSWER and others are organizing a march and rally in Washington, D.C. in front of the White House to demand an immediate end to the war on Libya.

One final note, the Eyewitness Libya speaking tour with Cynthia McKinney has drawn hundreds of interested people at each tour stop. It has proven to be an important forum for anti-war voices and organizers from LA to Chicago and beyond. As the bombing of Libya continues, let's hope that more people join the anti-war chorus so that we can bring an end to all U.S. wars and occupations. That should be our goal.

Ian Thompson
ANSWER Coalition, Los Angeles

If you can find the parts of his message that support the Libyan people's struggle please point them out to me.

How do Libyans in Tripoli feel about the NATO bombing of their city?

This video from LibyaResistance may give us a clue. The description reads:

In Tripoli, as Nato undertakes its most intense bombing of the campaign, locals come out to show their appreciation by cheering and whistling. Rooftops are full of people watching in appreciation. Later security roamed the streets shooting in the air to silence and intimidate… They should know by now.. Tripoli can never be silence

A comment reads:

@KernelThread We don't need to rebuild gaddafi's compound. In fact we need help to tear it down. His compound takes up tens of square kilometres and houses his own palaces and security. The OVERWHELMING consensus in tripoli is that we want it to be turned into a green park for EVERYONE to enjoy. So we will be tearing down the buildings anyway. The? rest of civilian Tripoli is untouched by NATO. Compare it to gaddafis indiscriminate bombing of misrata - now THAT we need to rebuild!

Here are the links to my articles at WL Central:
2011-06-22 No Libyans allowed at ANSWER Libya Forum
2011-04-13 Doha summit supports Libyan rebels
Current Events in Libya
2011-03-11 Who's running Egypt?
Libyans are spilling their blood for us all!
2011-02-24 Arming Gaddfi
2011-02-14 Senior Egyptian army officers ordered massacre
2011-02-13 Tales of Tyrants: Ben Ali, Mubarak & Suleiman
2011-02-12 Algeria Protesters Defy Ban, Demand Change
The Mubarak Screw Up & the Suleiman Danger
2011-02-10 Mubarak is Defiant
2011-02-10 Mubarak Expected to Step Down!
2011-02-09 The Google Search for Wael Ghonim
2011-02-08 The New Egyptian Normal: Thousands Demonstrate in Cairo, Alexandria
2011-02-06 Tunisia's Revolution Continues
2011-02-04 Tunisian Anonymous activists take on Egyptian cause
2011-02-04 Protesters roar back with "Day of Departure" for Mubarak
2011-02-03 Algerians plan Feb 12 protest against 19- year-long state of emergency
2011-02-01 Jordan's King Sacks Government as Protests Grow
2011-02-01 Tunisian Islamic Leader Returns as EU Freezes Ousted President's Assets
2011-02-01 Army Vows Not to Shoot as Protesters make Million Man Marches in Cairo, Alexandria Today [UPDATE: 2]
2011-01-30 Million Egyptian Protest Planned as Resistance Continues
2011-01-29 No Internet? No Problem! Anonymous Faxes Egypt
2011-01-28 In Jordan Thousands Demand New Government
2011-01-28 Mubarak Refuses to Step Down!
2011-01-28 Egypt is on Fire!
2011-01-27 Libya is in Revolt as Gaddafi Worries
2011-01-27 Algerians Plan Big Protest Rally for February 9th
2011-01-27 Tunisia Protests Continues as a Warrant is Issued for Ben Ali
2011-01-27 Tens of Thousands Rally in Yemen, Demand Change
2011-01-27 Mubarak Blinks as Egyptian Protests Continue for 3rd Day



Here is a recap of my other DKos diaries on the Internet, North Africa and Anonymous:
Are they throwing babies out of incubators yet?
Continuing Discussion with a Gaddafi Supporter
Boston Globe oped supports Gaddafi with fraudulent journalism
Doha summit supports Libyan rebels
Current Events in Libya
Who's running Egypt?
Amonpour Plays Softball with Gaddafi
Californians Support North African Revolts
Google Supports Revolts | Anonymous does too!
Secret U.S. Intelligence Source on Middle East Revealed !
Arming Gaddfi
are being executed in Egypt now?
Algeria's 19 year long State of Emergency to end soon, President says
Senior Egyptian Army Officers Ordered Massacre!
Tales of Tyrants: Ben Ali, Mubarak & Suleiman
UPDATE: Egypt's Mubarak Has Resigned! - The Mubarak Screw Up & the Suleiman Danger
BREAKING: Mubarak is Defiant
The Google Search for Wael Ghonim
Tunisia's Revolution Continues
Google Goes Rebel, Supports Egyptian Protest
Tunisian Anonymous activists take on Egyptian cause
for Mubarak
Act Now to Stop Mubarak's Thugs From Killing More! w Petition
Act Now to Stop Mubarak's Thugs From Killing More!
They Should Have Helped That Street Vendor
Million Egyptian Protest Planned as Resistance Continues
Huffington Post Disses the Jasmine Revolution Redux
No Internet? No Problem! Anonymous Faxes Egypt
Egypt is on Fire!
North African Revolution Continues
Egypt Protests Continue, Tunisia Wants Ben Ali Back
BREAKING: Protesters Plan Massive "Day of Wrath" in Egypt Today
Tunisians Thank Anonymous as North Africa Explodes
Huffington Post Disses the Jasmine Revolution
Tunisia: A Single Tweet Can Start A Prairie Fire!
Anonymous plans Op Swift Assist in Tunisia
Arrested Pirate Party Member Becomes Tunisian Minister
Is Libya Next? Anonymous Debates New Operation
Tunis: This Photo was Taken 66 Minutes Ago
The WikiLeaks Revolution: Anonymous Strikes Tunisia
EMERGENCY: DKos Must Act Now to Protect Tunisian Bloggers!

No Libyans allowed at ANSWER Libya Forum

Former congresswomen and Green Party presidential candidate has just returned from a fact finding mission to Libya. While there she talked [YouTube 03:31] with a Qaddafi supporter in the hospital after being injured by US/NATO bombing. He said "People in Germany have Hitler. People in Italy have Mussolini. It does not matter if they are good or not; they have [a] hero. Why [not] let us have [a] hero? We like him [Qaddafi]." McKinney responded "yeah, right."

The ANSWER Coalition sponsored nationwide speaking tour of Cynthia McKinney: Eyewitness Libya started in Los Angeles on Saturday, 18 June 2011. This was at the Immanuel Presbyterian Church on Wilshire where many progressive events take place. Almost two hundred people showed up. Among them was a group of about two dozen Libyans and Libyan-Americans, some of which clearly associated themselves with the Free Libya movement, the tricolor flag of the Libyan opposition was much in evidence not only as flags but as hats, scarfs and jackets. All these Libyans were clearly anti-Qaddafi.

While the Libyans said they had liked Cynthia McKinney in the past, especially her work in support of Gaza, they were here to set her straight about Qaddafi and Libya. I had seen some of these Libyan activists before, at the first LA rallies in support the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt. This was before ANSWER took up those struggles.

I didn't see any pro-Qaddafi Libyans that evening, either outside or inside the church. No Libyans were on the program and the green flag of Qaddafi's Libya was nowhere to be seen. If there were any pro-Qaddafi Libyans in attendance, they never revealed themselves. As far as I could make out, all of the pro-Qaddafi people in attendance, including Cynthia McKinney, were non-Libyans and all the Libyans who showed up were anti-Qaddafi.

So ANSWER showed them how we do public forums in the land of the free and the home of the brave. They excluded the Libyans from the Libya Forum! Not only did ANSWER tell them that they would not be allowed to pay their $10 and attend the event, a line of ANSWER people formed a human wall to divide the sidewalk between and us and them. When I exclaimed "They're keeping the Libyans out of the Libya Forum." one of the ANSWER people forming the wall told me "We're not keeping them out because they are Libyan. We're keeping them out because they support the intervention." This left me contemplating which was the worst reason for keeping people out? Keeping them out because of their nationality or keeping them out because of views contrary to those of the forum organizers? Of course, opposing NATO's intervention is a very easy and moral position to take for those that have lost no family to Qaddafi and didn't stand to lose any no matter how many Graf missiles and cluster munitions he was given free reign to use on cities under siege like Benghazi and Misrata. They have nothing to lose by keeping their hands cleanly in their pockets and taking the moral high ground.

Inside the forum a number of other people spoke before Cynthia McKinney. All, including her, lauded "brother Qaddafi." They liked to focus on the Pan-African and anti-imperialist reputation he cultivated in the 1980's and before. None talked about the changes since 2004. Nobody mentioned the military-to-military relations he was cultivating with the Bush Pentagon, his use of the "Prince of Darkness" Richard Perle as a consultant, his ties to Goldman-Sacks, etc. Even Fidel Castro recognized this new Qaddafi, noting before the NATO intervention ["NATO's Inevitable War" on-line at CubaDebate, March 4]:

"it is an undeniable fact that the relations between the US and its NATO allies with Libya in the recent years were excellent," adding that Libya "opened up strategic sectors as the production and distribution of oil to foreign investment" and that "many state-owned companies were privatized. The IMF played its role in implementing these policies." ... "Aznar was full of praise for Qaddafi, and he was followed by Blair, Berlusconi, Sarkozy, Zapatero, and even my friend the King of Spain; they all queued up under the mocking smile of the Libyan leader. They were pleased... I simply ask why they now want to invade Libya and send Qaddafi to the International Criminal Court at The Hague?"

The reason, Mr. Castro, is that they realize, even if you don't, that the Libyan people have finally lost all fear of Qaddafi. He cannot survive, he will he done as soon as his money runs out. His dictatorship is done and NATO has in the last hour thrown him under the bus to help their play for a future role in Libya.

Cynthia McKinney and ANSWER say nothing of this, just as they say nothing of the more than seven thousand Libyans that the opposition says that Qaddafi has killed. Later in San Francisco, McKinney puts the total number killed at "four thousand and some dead".. "but of course the bulk of that would have to come from the NATO bombing because they're using bunker buster bombs." [YouTube 07:15] For his part, Qaddafi claims that about eight hundred civilians have been killed by NATO bombs but there are many reasons for questioning even that number.

For example there was that embarrassing incident a couple of weeks ago when Libya officials took foreign reporters to a hospital to view a baby girl they said was injured in a NATO air strike. The whole fraud unraveled after a hospital workers passed a reporter a note saying the girl had been injured in an automobile accident. Latter some of the reporters spotted the "concerned uncle" at another Qaddafi dog and pony show and he was forced to admit that he worked for the Libyan government. The "Kuwait baby incubator" fraud comes to mind only this time NATO is the victim, not the perpetrator.

Fidel Castro may support Qaddafi but he knows that the uprising in Libya is part of the Arab Spring and flows from the real concerns of the people, saying "Without any doubt, the faces of the young people who were protesting in Benghazi, men, and women wearing the veil or without the veil, were expressing genuine indignation."

After decades of living under brutal dictators and being exploited by their imperialist masters, the people rose up, first in North Africa and then in the broader Middle-East. Peaceful protests against Qaddafi were already developing in Libya in the middle of January as Ben Ali was being thrown out of power in neighboring Tunisia. They were spurred on my the ouster of Mubarak in their eastern neighbor, Egypt, less than a month latter.

The causes for the uprising in Libya have been essentially the same as they have been throughout the whole region, beginning with rising food prices and growing unemployment and ending with fearless rejection of long established dictators. The people rising up in Libya have been largely working class, as they have been in Egypt and Tunisia. But there have been differences. In Tunisia and Egypt, the people were able to throw out dictators that had ruled for 20 or 30 years quickly and with relatively little bloodshed because the army refused to open fire on peaceful protesters. In Libya they did not refuse such orders. Eventually the protesters took up arms and started fighting back. The uprising became a civil war.

But that's not how ANSWER sees things. Since they missed the non-violent phase of the Libyan opposition, to them it never existed. They see the rebels as the same as contras. They are all paid agents of NATO, tools of imperialism, etc. They weren't paying attention until the UN and NATO got involved. They didn't express any public support for the uprising in Tunisia until after Ben Ali had been ousted. They didn't support the uprising in Egypt until 29 January. Compare that to the hacker group Anonymous, which started OpTunisia on 2 January and OpEgypt on 23 January. When it comes to Yemen and Bahrain, ANSWER has spoken out in support of the uprisings and against the repressive, US backed regimes. But when it comes to Libya and Syria, with their "anti-imperialist" dictators Qaddafi and Assad, it's a different story.

In those countries they don't support the Arab uprisings. In fact, they don't even recognize those struggles as part of the Arab uprising. Because those leaders have a reputation for opposing NATO, they support the government violence and act like the people have no right to rebel. Whatever NATO is for, they are against. Whatever NATO is against, they are for. That is the western centric way they view the world. In this perverse way, they tail after their own bourgeoisie. They don't support the people's revolutionary struggles in a steadfast way.

The Party for Socialism and Liberation [PSL] which leads ANSWER, made this point crystal clear in a recent proclamation:

Western powers bring death and destruction, nothing else. This must be a starting point for activists located in the United States and Europe when it comes to the Libyan revolt.

Ultimately the problem PSL will have with their starting point is that they can't lead by taking a reaction as their starting point.

An alternate starting point might be "steadfast support for the people's revolutionary movements irregardless of stand taken or pretended by the US." That is a starting point that doesn't have to wait for and react to what the Western powers do. That is a starting point that demands our attention and support as soon as a people act to liberation themselves. That is also a starting point that requires that we have an organic connection to those movements. It is a starting point that demands that we take the focus off of ourselves and what our government is doing about it.

Another Libyan, commenting on a similar Cynthia McKinney video presentation noted this "all about us" attitude that runs through much of the ANSWER type opposition to the war in Libya. I think he put it well:

These questions don't occur to McKinney as she goes on to state that the United States is "a poor trumpet" for democracy because of its own legacy of oppression, from "genocide of indigenous Americans to enslavement of stolen Africans to disfranchisement of women..." This, ironically, is just a perverse form of patriotism. For McKinney, the whole question is about America [my bold]—certainly not about the Libyans, who deserve democracy entirely apart from the United States' moral credibility to advocate for such. This is a cynical and dishonest distraction of the lowest order.

And that, finally, is why the Libyans had been excluded from the Libyan forum. It really wasn't about them.

Whereas Castro sees an attempt to subvert a revolution, "Imperialism and NATO – seriously concerned by the revolutionary wave unleashed in the Arab world, where a large part of the oil is generated that sustains the consumer economy of the developed and rich countries – could not help but take advantage of the internal conflict arising in Libya so that they could promote military intervention."; they see the Libyan uprising as CIA/NATO intrigue from top to bottom. Perhaps it is this simplistic view that leads them to abusing Libyans who attempt to attend their Libya forums.

After Cynthia McKinney spoke she showed a film they had made in Libya. The core of it was one bloody scene after another showing what NATO ordinance had done to Libya soldiers; missing were the women and children that should have been very prominent if indeed 800 civilians have been killed in the bombing. The Qaddafi government clearly was providing the visuals for this film and dead children would have been high on the list if they had any at that time.

In the Q&A that followed, it became clear that at least one Libyan had gotten in and he was against Qaddafi. He was booed.

Cynthia McKinney has been a little vague about who paid for this trip. She said that when she was in Tripoli earlier she decided that she wanted to return with others on a truth telling mission. She was able to borrow the $25,000 cost from an unnamed friend, who "I have to pay back." Hence the collection at the door and the latter passing of the plate. While it is pretty clear that this friend with 25 grand to spare is also a Qaddafi supporter, since we don't know who he is, we can't know what political and economic ties he may have to Qaddafi. This raises a lot of questions about the whole trip and tour. In any case, it's too bad they didn't let the Libyans in. She could have been a couple hundred dollars closer to her goal.

San Francisco was Tuesday. San Francisco was different.

ANSWER didn't keep Libyan's out of the Cynthia McKinney Libya Forum in San Francisco on Tuesday 21 June but they had other ways of letting them know they weren't welcome. An ANSWER Coalition supporter told the Libyans to "go back home." [YouTube] When a Libya women became offended and said that she takes it very personally because most of these Libyans are exiles, she has family in Libya, she has an uncle in his prison and Qaddafi has killed three of her cousins, she is told my one person that if she takes it personally she should take it outside and my another to "grow up."

They also tried very hard to avoid calling on the Libyans in the Q&A. When they failed, it led to some interesting exchanges. When a Libyan man ask Cynthia McKinney why she made no mention of the over seven thousand Libyans killed by Qaddafi in suppressing the uprising, she responded that "it is the right of the Libyan people, in my opinion, to solve their problems among themselves without NATO bombs and missiles." [YouTube] That got a big round of applause from the ANSWER supporters.

As was pointed out in

She may not realized it but this stance she is taking with regards to Libya also justifies Israel's vicious suppression of Gaza, which she has so courageously opposed; because a necessary corollary to the thesis that the world has no right to interfere with what a state does within it's own borders is that the world has no right to tell a state what those borders are. Qaddafi understands the Gaza connection, that is why he uses the example of Israeli to justify his own actions, telling France24 "even the Israelis in Gaza, when they moved into the Gaza Strip, they moved in with tanks to fight such extremists. It's the same thing here!" He was referring to Operation Cast Lead, which Israel launched against the Gaza Strip two days after Christmas, 2008, killing at least 1,400 Palestinians. See Gaddafi: Crackdown modeled after Israel. Weeks before NATO started bombing, Qaddafi was carrying out a Israeli styled crackdown on the Libyan people and this is what Cynthia McKinney is demanding not be interfered with.

In response to another Libyan who managed to ask a question, Akbar Muhammad from the Nation of Islam said "The way I'm going to answer my Libyan brothers [is] there's a way to go about it. You could have called for a referendum. Look at when those African leaders came to Benghazi, the people in Benghazi ran them out, these African heads of state. Now if you really wanted to do it, you could tell America, if you want their help, say "What we want is a vote"... "Could you come in, instead of bombing, supervise a referendum, so that the Libya people could say if they want Mummar Qaddafi or some other Westminster democratic process." That got a laugh.

Of course he is in the United States, not Benghazi. He can talk about the Afro-American struggles and then tell the Libyans "your situation is not unique." He can arrogantly forget that a few days before NATO started enforcing the no-fly zone, Qaddafi told Benghazi "We will show no mercy..."

Remember the circumstance under which Muhammad is suggesting they should have called for a referendum. Qaddafi's forces had just flatten the small town to the west of Benghazi, killing hundreds with aircraft, tanks and artillery. "The town of Ajdabiyah has been cleansed of mercenaries and terrorists linked to the al Qaeda organization," Libyan state TV bragged. Now Qaddafi was promising to "go house to house" and "kill the rats", meaning Libyans, in this city of almost a million. This was on the eve of the UN vote on resolution 1973. Libyan League for Human Rights chief Soliman Bouchuiguir, said that if Qaddafi was allowed to attack Benghazi there would be "a real bloodbath, a massacre like we saw in Rwanda." That is why the Arab League voted for intervention. That is why the first NATO air strikes were around Benghazi. Whatever their motivation, the NATO actions almost certainly did stop a bloodbath in Benghazi. This is an inconvenient truth for Qaddafi supporters.

But when you're not in a difficult situation it can be very easy to be judgmental.

I will tell you frankly that I don't like the police. I know that they have gotten away with murder too many times. I have seen them lie, torture and act like thugs. On a personal level, police have threatened to murder me and I have done time in jail because police lied on me. Still, if I happened to be threatened by gangsters or if my child is kidnapped, I will call the police.

And I don't think Ho Chi Minh was an imperialist tool because he allowed US OSS doctors to treat him or because he accepted US military help in his struggle against the Japanese.

However, I think it was absolutely shameful the way Stalin sent Molotov scurrying off to Washington to beg the United States to step up it's war against Hitler in 1942. Imagine that! A union of socialist republics demanding the US imperialists help them in their war with German imperialists by intervening militarily in a European affair. Didn't they know the US reputation for wantonly killing civilians, from the Indian wars or the Philippines for example? Shouldn't they have been able to anticipate the hell on Earth the US and British imperialists would create for the civilians of Dresden and some one thousand other German town and cities they incinerated in the final months of the war?

Of course, that was after the Hitler-Stalin pack broke down and Hitler invaded the USSR, before that [Daily Worker, 1940] it was "the Anglo-French Imperialist war machine."


UPDATE: How do Libyans in Tripoli feel about the NATO bombing of their city?

This video from LibyaResistance may give us a clue. The description reads:

In Tripoli, as Nato undertakes its most intense bombing of the campaign, locals come out to show their appreciation by cheering and whistling. Rooftops are full of people watching in appreciation. Later security roamed the streets shooting in the air to silence and intimidate… They should know by now.. Tripoli can never be silence

A comment reads:

@KernelThread We don't need to rebuild gaddafi's compound. In fact we need help to tear it down. His compound takes up tens of square kilometres and houses his own palaces and security. The OVERWHELMING consensus in tripoli is that we want it to be turned into a green park for EVERYONE to enjoy. So we will be tearing down the buildings anyway. The? rest of civilian Tripoli is untouched by NATO. Compare it to gaddafis indiscriminate bombing of misrata - now THAT we need to rebuild!

Here are the links to my articles at WL Central:
2011-06-22 No Libyans allowed at ANSWER Libya Forum
2011-04-13 Doha summit supports Libyan rebels
Current Events in Libya
2011-03-11 Who's running Egypt?
Libyans are spilling their blood for us all!
2011-02-24 Arming Gaddfi
2011-02-14 Senior Egyptian army officers ordered massacre
2011-02-13 Tales of Tyrants: Ben Ali, Mubarak & Suleiman
2011-02-12 Algeria Protesters Defy Ban, Demand Change
The Mubarak Screw Up & the Suleiman Danger
2011-02-10 Mubarak is Defiant
2011-02-10 Mubarak Expected to Step Down!
2011-02-09 The Google Search for Wael Ghonim
2011-02-08 The New Egyptian Normal: Thousands Demonstrate in Cairo, Alexandria
2011-02-06 Tunisia's Revolution Continues
2011-02-04 Tunisian Anonymous activists take on Egyptian cause
2011-02-04 Protesters roar back with "Day of Departure" for Mubarak
2011-02-03 Algerians plan Feb 12 protest against 19- year-long state of emergency
2011-02-01 Jordan's King Sacks Government as Protests Grow
2011-02-01 Tunisian Islamic Leader Returns as EU Freezes Ousted President's Assets
2011-02-01 Army Vows Not to Shoot as Protesters make Million Man Marches in Cairo, Alexandria Today [UPDATE: 2]
2011-01-30 Million Egyptian Protest Planned as Resistance Continues
2011-01-29 No Internet? No Problem! Anonymous Faxes Egypt
2011-01-28 In Jordan Thousands Demand New Government
2011-01-28 Mubarak Refuses to Step Down!
2011-01-28 Egypt is on Fire!
2011-01-27 Libya is in Revolt as Gaddafi Worries
2011-01-27 Algerians Plan Big Protest Rally for February 9th
2011-01-27 Tunisia Protests Continues as a Warrant is Issued for Ben Ali
2011-01-27 Tens of Thousands Rally in Yemen, Demand Change
2011-01-27 Mubarak Blinks as Egyptian Protests Continue for 3rd Day



Here is a recap of my other DKos diaries on the Internet, North Africa and Anonymous:
Are they throwing babies out of incubators yet?
Continuing Discussion with a Gaddafi Supporter
Boston Globe oped supports Gaddafi with fraudulent journalism
Current Events in Libya
Who's running Egypt?
Amonpour Plays Softball with Gaddafi
Californians Support North African Revolts
Google Supports Revolts | Anonymous does too!
Secret U.S. Intelligence Source on Middle East Revealed!
Arming Gaddfi
are being executed in Egypt now?
Algeria's 19 year long State of Emergency to end soon, President says
Senior Egyptian Army Officers Ordered Massacre!
Tales of Tyrants: Ben Ali, Mubarak & Suleiman
UPDATE: Egypt's Mubarak Has Resigned! - The Mubarak Screw Up & the Suleiman Danger
BREAKING: Mubarak is Defiant
The Google Search for Wael Ghonim
Tunisia's Revolution Continues
Google Goes Rebel, Supports Egyptian Protest
Tunisian Anonymous activists take on Egyptian cause
Protesters roar back with Day of Departure for Mubarak
Act Now to Stop Mubarak's Thugs From Killing More! w Petition
Act Now to Stop Mubarak's Thugs From Killing More!
They Should Have Helped That Street Vendor
Million Egyptian Protest Planned as Resistance Continues
Huffington Post Disses the Jasmine Revolution Redux
No Internet? No Problem! Anonymous Faxes Egypt
Egypt is on Fire!
North African Revolution Continues
Egypt Protests Continue, Tunisia Wants Ben Ali Back
BREAKING: Protesters Plan Massive "Day of Wrath" in Egypt Today
Tunisians Thank Anonymous as North Africa Explodes
Huffington Post Disses the Jasmine Revolution
Tunisia: A Single Tweet Can Start A Prairie Fire!
Anonymous plans Op Swift Assist in Tunisia
Arrested Pirate Party Member Becomes Tunisian Minister
Is Libya Next? Anonymous Debates New Operation
Tunis: This Photo was Taken 66 Minutes Ago
The WikiLeaks Revolution: Anonymous Strikes Tunisia
EMERGENCY: DKos Must Act Now to Protect Tunisian Bloggers!

Democracy Now: What Amy didn't say on Friday

On Friday's Democracy Now, Amy Goodman spent a long segment with Eli Pariser of MoveOn.org talking about threats to the Internet. The timing was particularly appropriate because an extremely serious threat to our Internet freedoms made important advances last week and an alarm needs to be sounded. Unfortunately that's not what Amy talked about. Instead of enlightenment, Amy and Eli offered diversion and confusion. I was very disappointed.

Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the Protect IP Act. This legislation, if it becomes law, will make the Internet in the US like the Internet in China; both will be filtered by their governments. Like the Internet Blacklist bill [COICA] that they couldn't get passed last year, this new bill authorizes the Attorney General to create a list of websites that are to be blocked. COICA would have made legal the Federal government practice of seizing domain names without a notice or a hearing. This is a power that the AG started exercising on his own authority last year, after they failed to get their eggs hatched in the Senate. But as I pointed out last December, they have figured out that seizing domain names is pretty impotent if the search engines continue to do their job of indexing the web for us as they find it. So now they have come out with an "improved version" that forces even more draconian controls on the Internet.

Governments all over the world are much more concerned with controlling the Internet after seeing the role it played in the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt. So this Internet Blacklist bill Version 2.0 [Protect IP Act] now also makes it illegal for any web services, including search engines, to refer to the banned websites or their content. In China, the government was forcing Google to filter out certain search results for say "Tiananmen Square", that's why they left China. I don't know who in the Chinese government determines what search engines are allowed to find on the Internet but if this act becomes law, it will be the Justice Department in the US.

This bill was voted out of committee about three weeks after it was introduced. It has been on a very fast track and as such has gone unnoticed by a lot of people, for example Amy has never mentioned it, not on Friday nor on any earlier show. But it hasn't gone unnoticed by Google because it's their business to know what's happening with regards to the Internet. This dairy has already reported on how Google's CEO Eric Schmidt likened Protect IP to the censorship they ultimately refused in China and he said that if it was passed into law, Google would still oppose it. He told The Guardian at a London conference on 19 May 2011:

"If there is a law that requires DNSs to do X and it's passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President of the United States and we disagree with it then we would still fight it."

This is the bill that was passed by the Judiciary Committee on Thursday. Other government threats to the free Internet have also emerged in recent weeks. They include Obama's new "Cybersecurity Initiative" announced on 15 May and government proposals at last week's eG8 conference. At that conference, French President Nicolas Sarkozy told the Internet organizations "You can't be exempt from minimum rules" [which help] "your companies to contribute fairly to national ecosystems." The headline The Telegraph ran about that conference was "Google's Eric Schmidt clashes with Nicolas Sarkozy at eG8."

A major fight between freedom of speech and government censorship on the Internet is brewing and Google is at the center of it, but none of this was spoken of on Democracy Now on Friday. That surprised me because the topic was "The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding from You." Instead of informing her viewers and listeners about the real and present danger that these government moves pose to our Internet freedoms, Amy and her guest choose to misrepresent certain Internet realities so that they could engage in a bit of fear mongering and misdirection.

Amy's co-host, Juan Gonzalez began the segment:

When you follow your friends on Facebook or run a search on Google, what information comes up, and what gets left out? That’s the subject of a new book by Eli Pariser called The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You. According to Pariser, the internet is increasingly becoming an echo chamber in which websites tailor information according to the preferences they detect in each viewer.

Amy continues:

The top 50 websites collect an average of 64 bits of personal information each time we visit and then custom-designs their sites to conform to our perceived preferences. While these websites profit from tailoring their advertisements to specific visitors, users pay a big price for living in an information bubble outside of their control.

Actually virtually all websites, not just the top 50, collect more that 64 bits of "personal information" when you visit them. I will explain to you why this is ordinary and necessary and really no big deal. And far from being outside of your control, I will show you how you can block this gathering of personal information absolutely but I will also tell you why you probably won't want to. Amy could have done a great service if she had used her show to tell you this, or point you to links on how to block access to your personal information rather than telling people this information gathering is "outside of their control" but this segment was all about misdirection, making mountains out of mole hills and creating a climate of fear, not teaching knowledge and spreading solutions.

Eli Pariser is the leader of MoveOn.org. Last summer they organized the "Google Don't Be Evil" campaign. Today he was on Democracy Now to talk about his new book. After introductions, he describes what he sees as the problem:

That’s right. I was surprised. I didn’t know that that was, you know, how it was working, until I stumbled across a little blog post on Google’s blog that said "personalized search for everyone." And as it turns out, for the last several years, there is no standard Google. There’s no sort of "this is the link that is the best link." It’s the best link for you. And the definition of what the best link for you is, is the thing that you’re the most likely to click. So, it’s not necessarily what you need to know; it’s what you want to know, what you’re most likely to click.

He is wrong. There is still a "standard Google." That's the Google you will get if they know nothing about you because they don't know who you are. There are easy ways to be anonymous on the web but Eli doesn't mention them. He is into fear mongering and solutions take away your fears.

Personally, I like the fact that Google searches keep getting better at finding "what you want to know" and not their idea or somebody else's idea of "what you need to know." But in case you are worried about this sort of thing please allow me to digress and take away your fears now by explaining a little about the technology and how you can avoid the use of personal information to tailor your web experience.

When you visit most modern websites, they will write a little data file to your hard drive that they can retrieve on subsequent visits. This is a well known Internet practice and there is nothing sinister about it. These little data files are known as "cookies." These cookies can store any information that the website has about you. Most typically cookies will store or point to any preferences you set for that website and other information such as login name and last page visited but it can be anything the website knows about you including information you have entered into forms on that website. Size limitations aside, the cookie will store whatever information the web server, say Google, has access to and tells it to store. Just about everything a website knows about you before you have positively identified yourself by logging-in is information it is stored via a cookie on your hard drive.

Nobody on Democracy Now mentions cookies, but this is how it works. Perhaps neither Democracy Now nor MoveOn.org understand these things. In that case they should consult an expert before they start talking about things they don't understand. No login and no cookie and you are pretty much anonymous to Google or any other website.

And the good news is that you can control cookies through your Internet browser, typically you can delete all or selected cookies and you can block cookies from all or selected websites. Like many things, exactly how you do this varies from browser to browser and is different in Firefox, Internet Explorer and Safari. Here's a link with some specific instructions.

So if you are concerned that Google is shaping search results just for you, as Amy and Eli are, there's no reason to fret about it. Just become empowered and learn how to turn off that behavior in your setup. However, once you have banned cookies from your system you may find that there are a great many advantages to using them and having the website that you are communicating with know who it is communicating with but the choice will be yours. Democracy Now could have performed a great service by pointing to this easy solution to the Internet threat that most concerned them this week but they didn't.

Apart from cookies, there is another, even more basic way websites collect your "personal information." They read your ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABLES. ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABLES are standard pieces of info that your computer makes public in order to facilitate communication. For example REMOTE_ADDR is a variable that contains your Internet address and HTTP_USER_AGENT tells everyone what type of browser you are using and often by deduction, what type of computer you are using. Eli and Amy warn about this too, although again, they never refer to the proper terminology. Eli tells Amy:

Well, it’s really striking. I mean, even if you’re not—if you’re logged in to Google, then Google obviously has access to all of your email, all of your documents that you’ve uploaded, a lot of information. But even if you’re logged out, an engineer told me that there are 57 signals that Google tracks—"signals" is sort of their word for variables that they look at—everything from your computer’s IP address—that’s basically its address on the Internet—what kind of laptop you’re using or computer you’re using, what kind of software you’re using, even things like the font size or how long you’re hovering over a particular link. And they use that to develop a profile of you, a sense of what kind of person is this. And then they use that to tailor the information that they show you.

And this is happening in a whole bunch of places, you know, not just sort of the main Google search, but also on Google News.

And I would add that this happens not only with Google News but with absolutely every website on the planet. Internet Explorer responds differently from Firefox, Macs are different from PCs, Android different from iPhone. If you don't want your screens to dissolve into madness, you had better be willing to let the website know what kind of system it is talking to. If you know what you are doing you can delete HTTP_USER_AGENT from you computer but the results won't be pretty.

Likewise, a website, even one as smart as Google, has to know what font size you are using before they can know how many characters to send you on a single line. And if they don't have your Internet address, well, they won't even know were to send them. They measure how long you hover over a link so they can pop up an information window if you linger, or maybe they just take you to the link after so many seconds. That can be a very helpful behavior for those operating with certain handicaps. So I say to Eli, get a grip, take your meds! All communications requires that you surrender a little "personal information." If you want someone to call you on the phone, you will have to give them your phone number. If you want them to mail you something, they will want an address.

I hope I have gotten across to you just how ordinary and essential these variables are and just how ridiculous these complaints against them are.They are part of the Internet Protocol, they are as old as the web, all websites and browsers without exception use them and it is disingenuous to imply that especially Google reads your computer's Internet address or what size font you are using. They all do, even democracynow.org.

This is what I call fear mongering. This is what I call making a mountain out of a mole hill. Google has my IP address, oh my! Meanwhile the government is fixing to tell Google it can no longer find thepiratesbay.org when you search for it. On that subject Amy and Eli are silent.

Juan Gonzalez asks a good question:

And what are the options, the opt-out options, if there are any, for those who use, whether it’s Google or Yahoo! or Facebook? Their ability to control and keep their personal information?

Eli doesn't have a really good answer:

Well, you know, there aren’'t perfect opt-out options, because even if you take a new laptop out of the box, already it says something about you, that you bought a Mac and not a PC. I mean, it’s very hard to get entirely out of this. There’s no way to turn it off entirely at Google. But certainly, you can open a private browsing window. That helps.

Here he could have mentioned proxy servers but he didn't. Proxy servers empower you because they give you a way to be completely anonymous to Google or any other website. An anonymous proxy server acts as an intermediary between you and the website you are ultimately talking to, so for example, you talk to Google through a proxy; Google sends the results to the proxy and the proxy send the results to you. In that case Google doesn't even know your IP address or anything about you.

Proxy servers have played a big role in providing access and insuring the anonymity of Internet activists involved in the ongoing uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East. In fact Google has been one of the players hosting proxy servers for these activists. These activists found themselves involved in a life or death struggle to hide their Internet identities from governments not large Internet companies. Since Democracy Now choose to raise concerns about Google and other websites collecting your personal information; they really should have told you where to find proxy servers and how to use them. They should have empowered you rather than imply there was really nothing you could do. Here's a link that will help you stay anonymous on the web.

Now that I have explained to you how you can protect your privacy on-line, let's get back to the thrust of the Democracy Now segment because if the truth is to be told, Google's use of our IP addresses and font sizes really didn't go to the core of their concerns. They are most concerned that Google isn't giving you the search results they think you should have.

ELI PARISER: Yeah. You know, if you look at how they talked about the original Google algorithm, they actually talked about it in these explicitly democratic terms, that the web was kind of voting—each page was voting on each other page in how credible it was. And this is really a departure from that. This is moving more toward, you know, something where each person can get very different results based on what they click on. [my note: that is not true but the message being promoted here is that Google is turning bad.]

And when I did this recently with Egypt—I had two friends google "Egypt"—one person gets search results that are full of information about the protests there, about what’s going on politically; the other person, literally nothing about the protests, only sort of travel to see the Pyramids websites.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, wait, explain that again. I mean, that is astounding. So you go in. The uprising is happening in Egypt.

ELI PARISER: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: In fact, today there’s a mass protest in Tahrir Square. They’re protesting the military council and other issues. So, if I look, and someone who likes to travel look, they may not even see a reference to the uprising?

ELI PARISER: That’s right. I mean, there was nothing in the top 10 links. And, you know, actually, the way that people use Google, most people use just those top three links. So, if Google isn’'t showing you sort of the information that you need to know pretty quickly, you can really miss it.

Of course if you only give Google that one word clue as to what you are looking for, it will be pretty much of a crap shoot what you get back. Ask Google to run a search on the word "Egypt" and it will bring back over 400 million results. If you just search on the one word you really aren't being helpful. It's almost like you are asking Google to read your mind. Still it will try it's damnedest to discern just what about Egypt you are interested in and put those in the first few pages of results. If it has access to your past search requests or other information, it will use them in trying to determine what you want to know about Egypt.

I would suggest that if Eli wants to have more control over what search results Google gives him them he needs to give it more information not less. Try Googling on "Egypt travel" or "Egypt uprising" and he will get more explicit results. I guarantee it. He should tell the search engine what he is looking for rather than asking it to pick the top ten of 400 million for him.

Clearly, Amy thinks that the uprisings in Egypt should be in the top ten of any search on the word Egypt no matter what they are really looking for. That's because the uprisings in Egypt are now all the rage at Democracy Now. It doesn't matter that Google was showing references to the uprisings in Egypt for weeks before it found any on the Democracy Now website. Now that Amy has become aware of how important it is, she seems to think that Google has a moral responsibility to make sure everybody knows.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, what about the responses of those who run these search engines, that they’re merely responding to the interests and needs of the people who use the system?

ELI PARISER: Well, you know, I think—they say, "We’re just giving people what we want." And I say, "Well, what do you mean by 'what we want'?" Because I think, actually, all of us want a lot of different things. And there’s a short-term sort of compulsive self that clicks on the celebrity gossip and the more trivial articles, and there’s a longer-term self that wants to be informed about the world and be a good citizen. And those things are in contention all the time. You know, we have those two forces inside us. And the best media helps us sort of—helps the long-term self get an edge a little bit. It gives us some sort of information vegetables and some information dessert, and you get a balanced information diet. This is like you’re just surrounded by empty calories, by information junk food.

So the gist of their complaint is that these "search engines" just give people what they want whereas Eli and Amy want them to take on some parental responsibilities, to force us to eat our "information vegetables" as it were, look out for our "longer-term self" and help us "be a good citizen."

So what do they propose as the solution to all these nasty fears they have raised with us? Of the problem, Eli says,

It’s a natural by product of consolidating so much of what we do online in a few big companies that really don’t have a whole lot of accountability, you know, that aren’t being pushed very hard by governments to do this right or do it responsibly.

So maybe we should be giving the government more authority to control just what search results Google and the other search engines give us? Say, doesn't the Protect IP bill just pasted by the Judiciary Committee yesterday do something like that? Oh that, we're not talking about that, not on Democracy Now!

UPDATE 31-01-11: While this bill has been voted out of committee as I said in the beginning, the good news is that Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) has blocked the legislation for now. IT MUST BE DEFEATED! Opposition to the bill is growing rapidly. Yahoo, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, Consumer Electronics Association, and Net Coalition have joined Google in publicly opposing the Protect IP Act. The main group that seems to be organizing against it now is Demand Progress. Please visit their site, add your name to the petition, check for updates and other ways to contribute to it's defeat.