Your Source for Leaks Around the World!

Posts Tagged ‘torture’

Army Forced to Release Documents Related to Secretive Bradley Manning Case

In Bradley Manning, Manning, News on February 27, 2013 at 12:59 PM

02/27/2013

After over one-thousand days of secretive legal proceedings, the United States government has released a small portion of the thousands of pages of courtroom documents from the case against alleged WikiLeaks source Pfc. Bradley Manning.

Manning, a 25-year-old Army intelligence specialist, was arrested in May 2010 and accused of passing hundreds of thousands of sensitive military documents to the anti-secrecy whistleblower site while working as an intelligence officer in Iraq. The soldier is scheduled to be formally court-martialed beginning this June and could be sentenced to life in prison for his role in providing WikiLeaks with privileged material. Since details from the pre-trial motion hearings have been scarce, however, little has been known publically about the government’s prosecution until now.

On Wednesday, the Military District of Washington informed members of the press that 84 judicial orders and rulings from the pre-trial hearings have been reviewed, redacted and uploaded to a military-run website where they can be viewed “In response to various Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and inquiries from news agencies.” The trove so far includes minor legal rulings regarding Pfc. Manning’s proposed plea, court orders sent to mental health professionals and other rulings made by the judge.

The Army says that the seven-dozen documents published on Wednesday make up just a small sampling of the more than 500 files that have already been either filed by attorneys for both sides in the matter or the military judge presiding over the case, Col. Denise Lind. In all, those documents total more than 30,000 pages, and the Army says materials will be continuously published online as they are prepared for release. They warn the media, however, that “due to the voluminous nature of these documents,” it could be a long time coming before the rest of the papers are vetted appropriately for publication.

The statement from the military comes just one day after Col. Lind ruled that although Pfc. Manning has been detained for over 1,000 days, the government did not violate the speedy trial statute in the military’s Rules for Courts-Martial. Lind admitted to the court that delays in the case have occurred in part due to the continuous efforts the government has undertaken to audit the trove of documents relevant to the case, but said the defense was not hindered by the slow-moving trial. David Coombs, the civilian defense attorney for Pfc. Manning, had unsuccessfully asked the judge to dismiss all charges against his client due to the lingering, nearly three-year process.

Previously, Coombs implored the court to free Pfc. Manning by arguing that the treatment his client endured while detained in a military brig after being captured was tantamount to torture. Lind agreed, in part, and said 112 days will be subtracted off of any sentence handed to the officer. When Coomb’s latest request was declined, however, journalist Ed Pilkington wrote for The Guardian that the government’s absurd quest for total secrecy has left Manning to stand trial in an “Alice-in-Wonderland world.”

“Lind spent an hour and a half without pause reading out a judgment that must have stretched to 50 pages, at a rate that rendered accurate reporting of it diabolically difficult,” he said of Lind’s response to Coomb’s last unsuccessful appeal. “No copy of the ruling has – then or now – been made available to the public, presumably on grounds of national security, even though every word of the document had been read out to the very public that was now being withheld its publication.”

“This prosecution, as it is currently conceived, could have a chilling effect on public accountability that goes far beyond the relatively rarefied world of WikiLeaks,” Pilkington wrote. Only hours later, the Army said they would start releasing courtroom filings.

Last May, the Center for Constitutional Rights sued the US government over the lack of transparency in the Manning trial. “Public scrutiny plays a vital role in government accountability. Media access to the Manning trial proceedings and documents is critical for the transparency on which democratic government and faith in our justice system rests,” CCR Legal Director Baher Azmy said in a statement when the petition against the Army Court of Criminal Appeals was filed. Additionally, a legal brief urging the government to release documents was filed last September and endorsed by The Associated Press, Atlantic Media, Dow Jones, Gannett, Hearst, CNN, McClatchy, The New York Times, The New York Daily News, Reuters, the Washington Post and other media outlets.

Pfc. Manning is expected to testify on Thursday this week when he is scheduled to formally offer a plea. He may avoid a life sentencing by pleading guilty to lesser charges.

manning

Via RT

The Unreported PTSD Problem Among Victims of State Violence

In News on February 26, 2013 at 2:59 PM

02/26/2013

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or PTSD has become a popular topic in the news recently, now that the PTSD problem among veterans is becoming impossible to ignore. PTSD seems to be a rational human response to extremely violent situations.

Unfortunately, while humanity may be less violent than our ancestors of past centuries, the majority of the human population is still forced to cope with overwhelming amounts of violence. This exposure to violence results in varying degrees of PTSD, some cases are unnoticeable and some are very pronounced.

The most interesting thing about how this issue is portrayed in the mainstream media is the fact that police officers and the military always seem to be the focus of discussion. It is true that police officers and military agents are exposed to a lot of violence, but more often than not they are the ones on the delivering end of that violence. What about those on the receiving end? Surely those who are on an even more unpleasant side of that violence suffer from many of those same symptoms.

This is an idea that would never even be considered in the mainstream media, they would do studies to see if military or police dogs have PTSD, before they would consider for one minute that a victim of state violence may experience it…. And they actually have done those studies on dogs.

The people of Iraq, Afghanistan and all of the other Middle Eastern and African countries that the US government has attacked must be completely traumatized after having their lives and their communities torn apart with violence. The unfortunate souls who get caught up in no knock raids on the wrong house probably have a difficult time coping with the situation afterwards.

Peaceful activists who get cracked in the head with batons or shot in the face with pepper spray are also likely candidates for PTSD. As are victims of the drug war, victims of unwarranted car searches and victims of TSA molestation.

Sadly, the violence that now causes these people to loose sleep at night is taboo, but even more than that no one even wants to admit that this violence exists. To do so would fracture the myth of the fair and benevolent state that people use to justify the aggression that surrounds them.

Since this worldview is so prevalent in today’s society, PTSD among victims of state violence is completely unrecognized, ignored and many of these people are left in a state comparable to Stockholm Syndrome, blaming themselves and thinking that their feelings are somehow unreasonable. The feelings that they have are legitimate though, the violence that agents of the state engage in effects people other than themselves, this fact should be obvious.

Of course, the aggressors are human too and i am not writing off the psychological impact that this violence has on them, especially if they feel forced or intimidated into carrying it out. However, it is dehumanizing to only consider the impact that a conflict has on one party involved. This sort of approach and rhetoric is exactly what makes foreign wars and home town police states palatable to the average people who just watch the mainstream media and believe what the politicians tell them.

Police-State

Via Intelhub

Army refuses to drop charges against Bradley Manning

In Bradley Manning, Manning, News on February 26, 2013 at 2:04 PM

bradmnng

02/26/2013

Bradley Manning will remain in military prison awaiting his eventual trial after an Army judge refused again a request to dismiss charges against the alleged whistleblower.

The military judge presiding over the case of Army Private first class Bradley Manning denied a motion entered by attorneys for the accused WikiLeaks source which would have dismissed charges against him due to the absence of a speedy trial.

Manning, 25, recently celebrated his one-thousandth day in military custody. From Ft. Meade, Maryland on Tuesday morning, however, Col. Denise Lind said that nearly three years of delays didn’t constitute a violation of the speedy trial statute provided under the United States Rules for Military Commissions.

Under RMC 707, the court had 120 days to get the case against Pfc Manning off the ground. But although the accused has yet to be formally tried, the judge said that Army prosecutors were able to start pre-trial matters well before the deadline, with the arraignment occurring after only three months — taking into consideration, of course, delays that Lind considered excusable by the court.

Nathan Fuller of the Bradley Manning Support Network reports from the courthouse that the judge ruled that delays in the case in 2011 caused by the government weren’t grounds to dismiss the charges since the Original Classification Authorities delegated to complete lengthy classification reviews in the case were permissible.

Lind found those delays “reasonable” and the prosecution of Pfc Manning “diligent,” the Guardian’s Ed Pilkington reports from Ft. Meade. On the other hand, he says, attorneys for the defendant called the ruling “shameful.”

Private Manning was arrested in May 2010 and accused of leaking sensitive documents to the whistleblower website WikiLeaks. His formal court-martial is currently scheduled to begin in June, more than three years after he was first detained by the US military.

Last year, Manning’s attorney lost a bid to dismiss the charges against him based off of the egregious treatment the soldier endured while detained in a brig at Quantico Military Base in Northern Virginia. Col. Lind credited Manning with 112 days off of whatever sentence is handed out if he’s convicted when he’s brought to trial later this year. Manning himself is expected to testify for only the second time later this week when he enters a plea deal: in lieu of charges that could put him in prison for life, Pfc Manning intends to plead guilty to lesser charges.

“Pfc Manning is attempting to accept responsibility for offenses that are encapsulated within, or are a subset of, the charged offenses,” his attorney David Coombs said last year.

mnng

Via RT

“I Begged for Them to Stop:” Waterboarding Americans and the Redefinition of Torture

In News on February 25, 2013 at 3:21 PM

waterboarding

02/25/2013

Try to remain calm — even as you begin to feel your chest tighten and your heart race. Try not to panic as water starts flowing into your nose and mouth, while you attempt to constrict your throat and slow your breathing and keep some air in your lungs and fight that growing feeling of suffocation. Try not to think about dying, because there’s nothing you can do about it, because you’re tied down, because someone is pouring that water over your face, forcing it into you, drowning you slowly and deliberately. You’re helpless. You’re in agony.

In short, you’re a victim of “water torture.” Or the “water cure.” Or the “water rag.” Or the “water treatment.” Or “tormenta de toca.” Or any of the othernicknames given to the particular form of brutality that today goes by the relatively innocuous term “waterboarding.”

The practice only became widely known in the United States after it was disclosed that the CIA had been subjecting suspected terrorists to it in the wake of 9/11. More recently, cinematic depictions of waterboarding in the award-winning filmZero Dark Thirty and questions about it at the Senate confirmation hearing for incoming CIA chief John Brennan have sparked debate. Water torture, however, has a surprisingly long history, dating back to at least the fourteenth century. It has been a U.S. military staple since the beginning of the twentieth century, when it was employed by Americans fighting an independence movement in the Philippines. American troops would continue to use the brutal tactic in the decades to come — and during the country’s repeated wars in Asia, they would be victims of it, too.

Water Torture in Vietnam

For more than a decade, I’ve investigated atrocities committed during the Vietnam War. In that time, I’ve come to know people who employed water torture and people who were brutalized by it. Americans and their South Vietnamese allies regularly used it on enemy prisoners and civilian detainees in an effort to gain intelligence or simply punish them. A picture of the practice even landed on thefront page of the Washington Post on January 21, 1968, but mostly it went on in secret.

Long-hidden military documents help to fill in the picture. “I held the suspect down, placed a cloth over his face, and then poured water over the cloth, thus forcing water into his mouth,” Staff Sergeant David Carmon explained in testimony to Army criminal investigators in December 1970. According to their synopsis, he admitted to using both electrical torture and water torture in interrogating a detainee who died not long after.

According to summaries of eyewitness statements by members of Carmon’s unit, the prisoner, identified as Nguyen Cong, had been “beat and kicked,” lost consciousness, and suffered convulsions. A doctor who examined Nguyen, however, claimed there was nothing wrong with him. Carmon and another member of his military intelligence team then “slapped the Vietnamese and poured water on his face from a five-gallon can,” according to a summary of his testimony. An official report from May 1971 states that Nguyen Cong passed out “and was carried to the confinement cage where he was later found dead.”

Years later, Carmon told me by email that the abuse of prisoners in Vietnam was extensive and encouraged by superiors. “Nothing was sanctioned,” he wrote, “but nothing was off-limits short of seriously injuring a prisoner.”

It turns out that Vietnamese prisoners weren’t the only ones subjected to water torture in Vietnam. U.S. military personnel serving there were victims, too. Documents I came across in the U.S. National Archives offer a glimpse of a horrifying history that few Americans know anything about.

“I had a ‘water job’ done on me,” one former American prisoner told a military investigator, according to a 1969 Army report. “I was handcuffed and taken to the shower… They held my head under the shower for about two minutes and when I’d pull back to breath, they beat me on the chest and stomach. This lasted for about 10 minutes, during which I was knocked to the floor twice. When I begged for them to stop, they did.”

Another said that his cellmate had rolled their cigarette butts together to fashion a full cigarette. When the guards discovered the “contraband,” they grabbed him and hauled him to the showers. “Three of the guards held me and the other one held my face under the shower,” he testified. “This lasted quite a while and I thought I was going to drown.” Afterward, he said, the same thing was done to his cellmate who, upon returning, admitted that “he confessed” as a result of the torture.

Still another captive testified that handcuffed prisoners were taken to the showers. “The guards would hold the prisoner’s head back and make him swallow water,” he explained. “This treatment would cause the prisoner to resist which would give the guards an excuse to punch the prisoner.” He also testified that it was no isolated incident. “I have witnessed such treatments about nine times.”

“Cruel or Unusual”

This wasn’t, in fact, the first time Americans had been subjected to water torture while at war in Asia. During World War II, members of the Japanese military used water torture on American prisoners. “I was given what they call the water cure,” Lieutenant Chase Nielsen testified after the war. When asked about the experience, he answered: “I felt more or less like I was drowning, just gasping between life and death.”

The same tortures were also meted out to American pilots captured during the Korean War. One described his treatment this way: “They would bend my head back, put a towel over my face, and pour water over the towel. I could not breathe… When I would pass out, they would shake me and begin again.”

For their crimes against prisoners, including water torture, some Japanese officers were convicted and sentenced to lengthy prison terms, while others were executed.

The legal response to torturers in Vietnam was very different. While investigating allegations against Staff Sergeant Carmon, for instance, Army agents discovered within his unit a pattern of “cruelty and maltreatment” of prisoners that went on from March 1968 to October 1969. According to an official report, Army agents determined that the evidence warranted formal charges against 22 interrogators, many of them implicated in the use of water torture, electrical torture, beatings, and other forms of mistreatment. But neither Carmon nor any of the others was ever charged, court martialed, or punished in any way, according to the records.

There was similar impunity for — in one of the more bizarre uses of water torture — Americans who tortured Americans in Vietnam. Although a 1969 Army Inspector General’s report into “alleged brutality and maltreatment” noted that “the water treatment was administered as a form of punishment and constitutes a form of maltreatment of prisoners,” those who water-tortured American personnel were never tried, let alone sentenced to long prison terms or executed for their crimes. In fact, those implicated — Army guards working at the American detention facility informally known as Long Binh Jail — apparently escaped any punishment whatsoever.

This record of impunity has continued in more recent years. While the CIA hasacknowledged its use of waterboarding after 9/11 and President Obama has unambiguously stated that the practice is a method of torture, his administration declared that no one would be prosecuted for utilizing it or any other “enhanced interrogation technique.” As a CIA spokesperson pointed out to ProPublica last year, after reviewing the Agency’s treatment of more than 100 detainees, the Department of Justice “declined prosecution in every case.”

The 1969 Inspector General’s report on American torture of American prisoners unequivocally defined the “water treatment” meted out to jailed American military personnel as “cruel or unusual.” Bush administration lawyers in the post-9/11 years, however, attempted to redefine the drowning of defenseless prisoners as something less than torture, basically turning the clock back to the ethical standards of the Spanish Inquisition.

At least that 1969 report noted that water torture “was administered without authority” to those American prisoners. The current situation has been radically different. In recent years, it wasn’t merely low-level brutalizers and their immediate superiors who sanctioned and approved torture techniques, but senior White House officials, including National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney. From George W. Bush’s own memoir, we know that the previous president gave an enthusiastic order (“Damn right!”) to subject other human beings to water torture, just as we know that President Obama has made certain no one in the government involved in ordering or facilitating such acts would ever answer for any of them.

In 1901, an American officer was sentenced to 10 years at hard labor for waterboarding a Filipino prisoner. By the late 1940s, the centuries-old practice was so reviled that significant prison time or even death lay in store for those using it. In the late 1960s, it was still viewed as a cruel and unusual punishment, even if U.S. troops who tortured Vietnamese and American captives weren’t subject to prosecution for it. In the twenty-first century, as water torture moved from Southeast Asian prison showers to the White House, it also morphed into an “enhanced interrogation technique.” Today, the president’s pick to head the CIArefuses even to label waterboarding as “torture.”

What does it say about a society when its morals and ethics on the treatment of captives go into reverse? What are we to make of leaders who authorize, promote, or shield such brutal practices or about citizens who stand by and allow them to happen? What does it mean when torture, already the definition of “cruel,” becomes usual?

Via TruthOut

Zero Dark Thirty, the CIA and film critics have a very bad evening

In News on February 25, 2013 at 9:46 AM

zd33

02/25/2013

The stigma attached to the pro-torture CIA propaganda vehicle, beloved by film critics, results in Oscar humiliation

Just a few months ago, the consensus of the establishment press and the nation’s (shockingly large) community of film critics was that Zero Dark Thirty was the best film of the year and the clear (and well-deserved) front-runner to win the most significant Academy Awards. “OK, folks, you can plan something else for Oscar Night 2013 . . . . Zero Dark Thirty will win Best Picture and Best Director (Kathryn Bigelow),” pronounced Time Magazine’s Richard Corliss. “‘Zero Dark Thirty’ and Kathryn Bigelow won major critics’ prizes on Sunday, confirming the Osama bin Laden manhunt thriller as an Oscar frontrunner,” said Entertainment Weekly. The film “looks like the movie to beat right now” as the critics’ awards “landscape is dominated by Kathryn Bigelow’s ‘Zero Dark Thirty,'” reported the Washington Post’s Jen Chaney.

But then political writers had begun to notice what film critics either failed to detect or just wilfully ignored. The film falsely depicted torture as instrumental in the finding of Osama bin Laden (“what is so unsettling about ‘Zero Dark Thirty’ is not that it tells this difficult history but, rather, that it distorts it”, said the New Yorker’s Jane Mayer). Beyond the torture falsehoods, it was a blatant vehicle for CIA propaganda, bolstering a worldview exclusively out of Langley (“This is not a coincidence. The CIA played a key role in shaping the film’s narrative,” reported BuzzFeed’s Michael Hastings; the CIA “couldn’t have asked for better product placement”, said the New York Times’ Timothy Egan; as a result, said The Atlantic’s Peter Maass: “Zero Dark Thirty represents a new genre of embedded filmmaking that is the problematic offspring of the worrisome endeavor known as embedded journalism”). In sum, said MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, the film “colludes with evil” (a long but very partial list of writers, filmmakers, FBI agents and even government officials who similarly denounced the film is here).

The first sign that this fallout was harming the film was when its director, Bigelow, was not even nominated for Best Director. And now, on Sunday night at the Academy Awards, Zero Dark Thirty got exactly what it deserved: basically nothing other than humiliation:

“‘Zero Dark Thirty,’ about the decade-long US hunt for Osama bin Laden, has received more attention in the US Congress than it did at the Oscars on Sunday, amid political fallout over its depiction of torture and alleged intelligence leaks to the movie’s makers. . . .

“Just three months ago, the thriller, which culminates in Osama bin Laden’s killing by US Navy Seals, was a strong contender to pick up the biggest prize of Best Picture, as well as the Best Actress and Original Screenplay awards.

“By the end of Sunday night, however, it had picked up just one award – a shared Oscar for Sound Editing, which was a tie.”

(I’m actually glad that it won essentially half of an award, for sound editing, as that’s somehow more cruel than if it just won nothing).

This is a rare case of some justice being done. There’s little question that the objections to its pro-torture depictions and CIA propaganda were what sunk the film. In explaining why its Oscar chances had all but disappeared, the Atlantic’s Richard Lawson explained last month that as a result of the controversy, the film has “just become something vaguely taboo”. That’s a good thing, as it should be taboo. The film is unsurprisingly a box office success, earning in excess of $100 million. But still, it’s both gratifying and a bit surprising to see that this CIA-shaped jingoistic celebration of America’s proudest moment of the last decade – finding bin Laden, pumping his skull full of bullets, and then dumping his corpse into the ocean – ended up with the stigma it deserves.

In response to this controversy, both Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal have compounded their original bad acts. Bigelow spent months literally pretending that the actual criticisms of her film did not exist and thus never addressed them. She instead chose to wage war on the obviously ludicrous strawman argument that absolutely nobody made: that merely to depict torture is to endorse it and that omitting torture would be to “whitewash” history. Nobody complained that the film depicted torture; the complaint was that it falsely depicted it as vital in finding bin Laden and thus portrayed it in a falsely positive light.

Meanwhile, Boal has been playing the McCarthyism martyr by pretending that the Senate is investigating his film over its pro-torture message. Such an investigation would indeed be odious, but it’s a figment of Boal’s imagination. To the extent the Senate has expressed any interest in investigating, it is not over the film’s content but whether the CIA passed classified information about the bin Laden raid to Bigelow and Boal in order to get the film it wanted (though not dispositive, there is ample evidence to believe this). The investigation targets the CIA, not the filmmakers. For an administration that has waged its own war on whistleblowers by prosecuting and imprisoning them at record numbers, surely the CIA’s abuse of classified information for the purpose of producing Hollywood propaganda merits a formal investigation, particularly since the government has vigorously resisted disclosure attempts in court from the media and advocacy groups on the ground that the bin Laden raid is classified.

From this controversy, the film critic community stood revealed as well. Objections to this film triggered an incredibly acrimonious reaction on the part of professional critics who, prior to the emergence of the controversy, had lavished the film with the most gushing accolades. One of the best essays on why that happened was from Reuters’ culture critic Alissa Quart, who explained that the critics’ anger over this film being “politicized” reflects a broader syndrome where political indifference is viewed as some sort of virtue:

“In the postwar decades, the best reviewers of the day saw addressing the politics within the cultural works they reviewed as part of their jobs. . . . Writers like [Mary] McCarthy, who was both a theater critic and a political writer, were more attuned to the ideological sources behind play and film, as they came up in the Depression and the war years, according to Hunter College Professor Richard Kaye, who is working on a project about McCarthy. After all, art was explicitly tied to politics within fascism as well as within communist states. Watching the power of ideology at work within fascism made writers more likely to combine politics with aesthetics. They understood the propagandistic potential of overwhelmingly dramatic popular entertainment.”

“Today, in part because because popular art has largely been decoupled from politics, film critics tend to be narrower in their expertise. They are also operating in an America where ‘partisan’ and ‘political’ have been made to equal each other in a toxic way. Thus, critics and many political thinkers can’t necessarily agree on a critical focus. . .

“But if political writers do their job they understand something even more important: that ideological meaning and agendas are not incidental to thrilling films and cinematography. Why surgically remove politics from a discussion of a film’s final quality, rendering the argument so purely aesthetic that it becomes low-brow decadent . . . . Ethical lapses or gaps in movies should be critiqued, along with bad performances or absurd storylines.”

Another equally good discussion of the exposed mentality of film critics came from Jeff Reichert, himself a filmmaker and critic:

“If Bigelow and Boal want to insist they haven’t made a movie that validates torture morally, that’s fine. But to label it apolitical, as they have repeatedly done, either suggests willful mendacity or ignorance. Their film quite clearly stakes out a position on one of the more controversial political questions of the last decade in American politics, and soon it will be making its case several times a day on thousands of screens around the country. Greenwald’s writings on the film may hyperventilate, but when one considers the scale of the historical rewrite we’re about to witness, his pitched tenor is more forgivable. Maybe ‘propaganda’ isn’t so far off the mark after all.

“If our critical culture handled films of this ilk with something other than kid gloves, we might not have to continually address these same, tired questions. . . . It’s become all too commonplace for critics to float above the fray, and praise works they find aesthetically valuable and politically questionable (a replaying of the old Leni Riefenstahl debate again), but is this l’art pour l’art stance any way to watch movies? Isn’t this just abdicating a crucial part of the critical act? Wouldn’t we rather our film writers be morally engaged viewers rather than diffident aesthetes? . . . .

“Especially in light of how the filmmakers have spoken about their work, the problem with Zero Dark Thirty becomes less that it ends up making a forceful case for the efficacy of torturing human beings for national security – it’s that one can easily walk away from the film doubting whether Bigelow and Boal have even realized that this is what they’ve done.”

In an era where virtually everything the government does is shielded from disclosure, democratic accountability, and even the rule of law, films such as Zero Dark Thirty that purport to tell political stories are inherently highly political, likely to have an enormous impact on how political events are perceived. When blatant falsehoods are presented as truth on critical questions – by a film that touts itself as a journalistic presentation of actual events – insisting on apolitical appreciation of this “art” is indeed a reckless abdication.

That’s particularly true when the film creates itself as a servant to political power: by itself, the CIA’s heavy (and still unexamined) involvement in this film is a significant and disturbing development. The last thing America needs is more ways to celebrate and glorify US militarism, and the second-to-last thing it needs is Hollywood devoting its multi-million-dollar budgets and emotionally and psychologically manipulative tactics to propagating the CIA worldview as indisputable, inspiring truth. It’s a very good thing that all of this did not go unnoticed or rewarded.

Argo

The film that won most of the significant awards (including Best Picture), Argo, has received its own criticisms for false history and US/CIA propaganda; Whatever is true about that film showing events from three decades ago, the CIA was much more involved with and invested in Zero Dark Thirty; that’s why it played such a significant role in how it was made.

zd3

Via TheGuardian

%d bloggers like this: