Now We Know What the IDF Was Hiding About the Flotilla

Two of the journalists who were in the flotilla, Paul McGeough and Kate Geraghty, gave an account of what they believe happened. Geraghty secreted SD cards with photos on her body, and got them away from the IDF's attempt to destroy the evidence of the battle (or massacre.) There are photos accompanying the story; you can see them on The Age's website, where I linked.

In the blackness before the rising of a burnt-orange moon, all that could be seen of the Israelis around us were pin-points of light, as warships sitting a kilometre or more either side of the flotilla inched in - seemingly to squeeze the Gaza-bound humanitarian convoy.

Then, the tightening noose. Sneaking up and around every boat, there were bullet-shaped hulks that soon became impossible to hide as the moonlight made fluorescent tubes of their roiling wakes. First one, then two and maybe four could be seen sneaking in from the rear.

They hunted like hyenas - moving up and ahead on the flanks; pushing in, then peeling away; and finally, lagging before lunging. But as they came alongside the Mavi Marmara, the dozen or so helmeted commandos in each assault craft copped the full force of the ferry's fire hoses and a shower of whatever its passengers found on deck or could break from the ship's fittings.

Suddenly, sound bombs and tear-gas were exploding on the main aft-deck, where prayers were held five times a day. The lifejacketed passengers on the rails at first seemed oblivious as those behind them donned the few gas masks that were on board and others, wearing asbestos gloves, sought to grab the devices and hurl them back at the Israeli commandos - before they exploded.

In failing to get their grappling irons to hold on the rails of the five-deck ferry, the commandos in their assault craft continued to be an irritant, or perhaps a decoy because at this point the Israelis opted for a critical change of plan - if they could not come up from the water, then they would have to drop from the sky.

Now the over-use of force makes sense.  They weren't scared. They were frustrated.
They had tried to use grappling hooks, and it hadn't worked. The activists on the Mavi were ready for them, and just removed them, while (non-lethally) pushing the commandos away with water cannons. They also tried tear gas, and that didn't work too well either; the activists simply threw the tear gas back, and knew that the gas was going to be used; that's why they brought the masks. (Which doesn't make them terrorists; it just makes them intelligent.)

As distress flares launched from the ship cut through the steel-beam spotlights on Israeli helicopters hovering overhead, the first Israeli commandos who slithered down ropes from the choppers were easy pickings for activists who rushed the upper decks on hearing the machines moving into place.
At this stage, Challenger I's British skipper, Dennis Healey, opted to gun the ship's engines, hoping to break away from the Israelis swarming the rest of the flotilla.

That's the end of what the journalists were able to recount. The rest comes from other activist sources:

On hearing the helicopters, activists on the upper decks rushed to the top level of the ship - grabbing the commandos even before they landed, disarming them; beating them till, according to some who were present, their leaders demanded that the Israeli's not be harmed; but in one case, one of the Israelis was hurled from one deck to the ship to the next.

Son of a BITCH. THAT is why we only saw that one snippet of video. THAT is why it is constantly repeated without context. THAT is why they were so fucking paranoid about seizing the journalists' video. If any other video had been shown, we would have seen that that soldier was never pushed into the water at all.

Go look at it again. At 0:36, the soldier is clearly pushed off the deck, but we never see him hit the water.That's because he didn't. He was pushed off the deck onto another one a few feet below, in order to keep him out of the melee!

You also never see that the activist leaders stopped the others before the Israelis could get seriously hurt. Notice how the video is noticeably cut at several places, most noticeably at 0:21 and 0:29?  And how there is a pan away from the melee at 0:26? It never pans back. We had no IDEA when that stopped. Now we do. It stopped as soon as it was clear that the commando was subdued.

There were conflicting accounts of the first commando's landing - some activists said he was injured and was being carried inside the ship for treatment by the flotilla doctors. However, a Serbian cameraman, Srojan Stojiljkovic, said that some of the activists had armed themselves with lengths of chain and metal posts.
''Some of the people caught the first commando before he touched the deck - a few started to hit him, but a lot of people moved in to shelter him with their bodies,'' the cameraman said. ''Another soldier with a bleeding nose was brought in … a few people threw punches, but not as many as I would have expected.''

Funny how this wasn't mentioned, huh? The activists treated the commandos' wounds. If they're murderous Islamists, they're really, really terrible murderous Islamists, aren't they? And that's not even getting into the guys who made sure to "shelter him with their bodies". I wonder how many of those guys got a bullet or two for their trouble?

Matthias Gardel, a leader of the Swedish Palestinian support group, confirmed that the soldiers had been beaten, but insisted that those involved were unarmed and that in keeping with the ship's non-violent charter, the soldiers' weapons were thrown overboard.Soon after the soldiers had been treated, the injured and dead from among the ship's passengers were brought in.

This is a consistent point as well. The IDF insists that they were shot at with their own weapons; but the activists insist that the weapons were thrown overboard.
And notice something else? They treated the soldiers first.

Mr Stojiljkovic said: ''Some were not badly wounded, but then a guy was brought in with a point-blank shot between his eyes - he was dead and I was told that another person was killed in the same way.''

The Turkish actor Sinan Albayrak said he had witnessed one of the most senior of the Turkish activists ordering passengers to cease beating two of the Israeli soldiers. Later, he saw a Turkish photographer who had been shot in the back of the head; and while he and others had been attempting to assist another injured activist, Israeli troops had opened fire on them.

Well, this corroborates the other stories I'd read about that Turkish photographer. I hadn't read about the other injured activist and his friends getting murdered—there is NO other word for it—but it hardly surprises me at this point.

Mr Gardel said that the bulk of the passengers had remained in the second deck saloons and had not been involved in resisting the Israelis. ''But a bunch of people tried to protect the bridge, the engine-room and the point from which we streamed the live video,'' he said.

Another activist, a Turk, lifted his shirt to reveal 10 puncture marks in a rough and black-bruised circle, about the circumferences of a tea cup, which he said had been inflicted when he was bitten by an Israeli security dog while assisting the Israelis as a translator.

Lovely. Puts those stories about humane treatment of prisoners in perspective.

The dead are believed to include Turkish journalist Chetin Genghis, whose head wounds suggested he had been shot from above - possibly from one of the Israeli helicopters.

Another of the dead was said to be an Indonesian cameraman, Sura Fachrizaz, who was shot in the chest. Also among the dead was a Malaysian doctor who, activists said, was shot while treating the wounded.

Shot from above. Shot while treated wounded. "Defense", that ain't. It is understandable: already-jumpy and frustrated commandos, who were nothing more than glorified prison guards to begin with, went completely apeshit when the "live fire" order went out. The ROEs went right out the window, if there were even ROEs to begin with, and they just started shooting everybody in sight.

(And, quite possibly, started dumping bodies over the windows when they realized how badly FUBAR the situation was. But that hasn't been corroborated yet.)

As the 100-plus reporters and other media workers on board followed orders to return to the ship's press room, after being told by the captain that his vessel was now under Israeli control and that all resistance was to cease, many were crestfallen by a sense that an Israeli blanket of ''white noise'' had prevented them from getting the story out.

But then one of their number flicked the switch on a large flat-screen TV on the wall. It burst into life with a Turkish channel, running the live-feed video that the ship had been transmitting to websites run by the Free Gaza Movement and the flotilla's other sponsors - it was scenes of the Israeli takeover of the Mavi Marmara. A resounding cheer went up.

Pity that most Americans haven't seen that video. They won't, of course. The narrative in the U.S. has already been set. We're already seeing the usual suspects make the usual apologias for the usual crimes. I doubt this very story will see much play in the U.S. at all. But outside of Israel and the United States, everybody is going to know what the score is. Especially now.

There's another story about the lengths that Kate Geraghty had to go to to keep those photos by the way.  She had to secret the SD cards around her body with gaffer's tape. The IDF was that desperate to make sure that we only saw their single, edited, out-of-context minute of footage.

Kudos to her. Kudos to both her and Paul McGeough for telling this story. Now we know.

"Go Back To Gaza, You Traitor!"

That's what MK Miri Regev to MK Haneen Zoabi said in the Knesset today:

The Knesset witnessed a rare eruption of violence on Wednesday when MK Haneen Zoabi (Balad) was cursed and shoved after relating her experience as a passenger on the Mavi Marmara.

Knesset members from coalition and opposition parties alike sought to shout down the freshman MK, but the furor reached a climax when Anastasia Michaeli (Israel Beiteinu) charged the podium in an attempt to physically block Zoabi from continuing her speech.

It took a battery of ushers to remove MK Eli Aflalo (Kadima), who was called to order three times but remained standing in an aisle yelling and gesticulating until he was forcibly removed.

During the pandemonium, Arab and Jewish MKs scuffled in the aisles, and ushers were summoned to separate them.

“Go back to Gaza, you traitor!” MK Miri Regev (Likud) yelled in Arabic at Zoabi during the heated debate on the Free Gaza flotilla.

Zoabi was released from police custody early Tuesday morning.

At the podium, Zoabi said she was “astonished by the incitement” and “despised the words” she had heard during the Knesset debate on the Monday morning incident.

The line from the title is horrible, but even worse is the attempt by other MKs to forcibly prevent her from speaking. Is Israel a democracy, or isn't it? You can't eat your cake and have it too.

Edit: I do have to admit that the asshat who yelled "check if she has a knife!" comes in a close second. And the move to try to expel members of the Knesset who "were found to have committed incitement against the State of Israel" comes in pretty high too. That would be nothing more than a license to expel critics of Government policy at will, and render the Knesset into an Iraqi- or Iranian-style rubber-stamp Parliament. The people of Israel, no matter their ethnicity and religion, deserve better than that.

Canadian Activist: They "gunned down civilians from helicopters"

Here's another eyewitness:

Neish watched in horror as Israeli soldiers gunned down civilians from helicopters as the raid began, and he saw the bloody bodies of at least nine people killed on the Mavi Marmara. He flatly rejects allegations that people on the ship were armed or that they attacked the soldiers. A videotape produced by the IDF purports to show activists hitting the soldiers with sticks and stones, but its legitimacy is in question.

There seems to be somewhat of a running theme here.

Want Some Prewritten Anti-Flotilla Tweets and Talking Points?

Head on down to FlotillaFacts.com for all your bullshitting needs. Here's a list of prewritten tweets!

You can also use these points in media talkbacks on facebook and on your blogs.

FACT: Israel transfers 15K TONS supply of human aid EVERY WEEK 2 GAZA http://tinyurl.com/2dxhrhc #freedomflotilla #flotilla #gaza

BLOCKADE AIM: Nsure weapons not transferred 2 HAMAS- using to attack INNOCENT http://tinyurl.com/2dxhrhc #freedomflotilla #flotilla #gaza

FACT: terrorists use AID DELIVERIES 2 smuggle ingredients 4 BOMBS in SUGAR SACKShttp://tinyurl.com/2dxhrhc #freedomflotilla #flotilla RT

QUOTE: “They are going to have to FORCEFULLY STOP US” (organizers) http://tinyurl.com/2dxhrhc #freedomflotilla #flotilla #gaza

FACT: flotilla REFUSED 2 supply aid 4 captive in isolation, GILAD SHALIT http://tinyurl.com/2dxhrhc #freedomflotilla #flotilla #gaza

FACT: 5 boats boarded, protestors complied/ safely let 2 shore http://tinyurl.com/2dxhrhc#freedomflotilla #flotilla #gaza RT

FACT: funding from Islamist organization IHH/ links 2 FUNDAMENTALIST JIHADI groups http://tinyurl.com/2dxhrhc #freedomflotilla #flotilla

FACT: protestors carried out PRE-PLANNED VIOLENCE: threw soldier off top deck http://tinyurl.com/2dxhrhc #freedomflotilla #flotilla #gaza

FLOTILLA: TURKEY has BLOOD on its hands, NOT Israel http://tinyurl.com/255ksq2#freedomflotilla #flotilla #gaza

FACT: HAMAS responsible 4 suffering of Palestinians/Israelis: RACIST CHARTER http://tinyurl.com/2e8xlbw #freedomflotilla #flotilla #gaza

(I especially like the one that namedropped Shalit.)

I'd been wondering why the #flotilla hashtag had been flooded with this sort of nonsense. Now I know.

And, now, so do you!

British Survivor: "The Israeli military were firing on us...we had no arms".

This is almost getting old. Guardian:

"At around 4.10am I woke up, went up to the deck so I could see outside and I saw small dinghies bristling with guns and Israeli military speeding towards the ship," she said.

"Helicopters then appeared and gas and sound bombs were used ... We then had the first passenger fatally injured. He was brought to the back of the deck below. He was shot in the head.

"I saw him. He was in a very bad way and he subsequently died. There were bullets flying all over the place. We asked for the Israelis to stop the attacks. We asked this in English: 'We are not resisting, please help the injured.' Instead of helping the injured the saloon remained surrounded by soldiers targeting individuals with laser sights.

"The captain announced live ammunition was being used, to stop resisting and to go downstairs. At 5.15am we started broadcasting over the Tannoy for help to evacuate the critically injured and for emergency medical assistance. We asked the Israelis to stop the attacks in English."

She said she could "see the red of the laser sights sweeping over people's heads".

"The Israeli military were firing on us," she said. "We had no arms. We made two attempts to get the message across in the written form. We wrote a sign in Hebrew saying 'SOS! Need medical assistance. People are dying. Urgent.'"

After 7am, after the commandos had taken control of the boat, she said they handcuffed everyone using cable ties, confiscated their phones and told them to sit in lines on the deck in the sun for several hours, before being taken into the cabin after some complained of dehydration.

"It was terrifying," she said. "If you talked they pointed a gun at you."

This time, however, the Guardian has a video interview. I highly recommend you go watch it. It's very, very different when you hear somebody describe these acts, instead of just seeing them as text on a screen.

IDF "Quietly Retracts" Claim that Flotilla Activists Are Tied to AQ

Max Blumenthal ferreted it out:

When placed under journalistic scrutiny, the IDF is being forced to admit that its claims about the flotilla’s links to international terror are based on innuendo, not facts. On June 2, the IDF blasted out a press release to reporters and bloggers with the shocking headline: “Attackers of the IDF soldiers found to be Al Qaeda mercenaries.” The only supporting evidence offered in the release was a claim that the passengers “were equipped with bullet proof vests, night vision goggles, and weapons...”

...Not content to believe that night vision goggles signal membership in Al Qaeda, Israel-based freelance reporter Lia Tarachansky and I called the IDF press office to ask for more conclusive evidence. Tarachansky reached the IDF’s Israel desk, interviewing a spokesperson in Hebrew; I spoke with the North America desk, using English. We both received the same reply from Army spokespeople: “We don’t have any evidence. The press release was based on information from the [Israeli] National Security Council.” (The Israeli National Security Council is Netanyahu’s kitchen cabinet of advisors).

Today, the Israeli Army’s press office changed the headline of its press release (see below), basically retracting its claim about the flotilla’s Al Qaeda links. The new headline reads: “Attackers of the IDF Soldiers Found Without Identification Papers” (the top of the browser screen still contains the original headline about Al Qaeda). The more Israel’s claims about the flotilla’s terrorist links are challenged, the more they fall apart.

Take nothing for granted on this issue. If the source is an interested party, then they have an incentive to misdirect, misinform, or out-and-out bullshit you. This applies to the activists just as much as the IDF, of course. I'm certainly not entirely convinced that the IDF were tossing people overboard. But the IDF has a lot more to hide, and they're the ones who were seizing cameras and recording devices.

Edit: But I think I know why this happened. They probably knew they would have to retract this. It doesn't matter. If you state something, then retract it later, it can easily be revived over, and over, and over again as a "zombie lie" by people who are looking to have their prejudices confirmed.   That's what's happened with every political issue and international conflict for decades, and the IDF knows full well how well it works. It's disgusting that they'd use it—it's also how those asshole Holocaust deniers work—but they're clearly scared as hell about the international uproar over this and will use every tool they can.

Expect "the activists were tied to AQ" to pop up for a good long time.

(Speaking of tools, I haven't even tried to find out what Dersh is saying about all this yet...)

Reuters: Israelis Tossed Dead Activist Bodies Into the Sea

At least according to one of the organizers.

Several activists suggested the death toll was higher than nine, and accused the Israeli army of hiding bodies and destroying forensic evidence.

"The soldiers shot a doctor who wanted to surrender and they threw dead bodies into the sea. We still don't know what happened to them," said Bulent Yildirim, chairman of the IHH, the Turkish Islamic charity which organized the convoy.

He said Israeli commandos had forced activists to kneel with their hands behind their backs after they stormed the flotilla, and helicopters circling overhead poured cold sea water onto them.

Well, that would explain the disparities in death counts.

Take a look at this, too:

Kevin Ovenden of Britain said a man who had pointed a camera at the soldiers was shot directly through the forehead with live ammunition, with the exit wound blowing away the back of his skull.

That would also explain the lack of footage. You would think that simply taking the camera would be enough. Better safe than sorry.

(Edit: Obviously these are stories from an interested party. But they are serious accusations, and deserve independent investigation.) 

American Shot Four Times in Head By Israeli Flotilla Commandos

More from ABC. This might have been in a story I quoted from earlier, but I didn't catch it:

A U.S. citizen who lived in Turkey is among the nine people killed when Israeli commandos stormed a Turkish aid ship heading for the Gaza Strip, officials said today. The victim was identified as Furkan Dogan, 19, a Turkish-American. A forensic report said he was shot at close range, with four bullets in his head and one in his chest, according to the Anatolian news agency.

Dogan was a high school student studying social sciences in the town of Kayseri in central Turkey. He was born in Troy, N.Y., and moved to Turkey at the age of 2. He will be buried in his hometown tomorrow.

Dogan's body was returned to Turkey today along with eight others, all Turkish nationals, who were on board the Mavi Marmara.

Four to the head? FOUR? One shot to center of mass would almost certainly be enough to put the guy down in an emergency situation, and he had been shot in the chest. With the sort of weapons these guys use, you take a round, you're probably not dead but you're no threat, either. Even if you were still moving, one shot to the head would guarantee that you drop.

But Dogan got four to the head. That isn't defense. Unless we get really good evidence to the contrary, that's an EXECUTION.

BP Doesn't Want You To See This Picture of a Dead Dolphin

So here it is.

(Picture found at sfgate.com, made by Mike Stewart for the Associated Press)

Yobie Benjamin explains:

Also gravely impacted are dolphins. Known to play around boats, many Atlantic bottle nose dolphins are drowning in oil as they follow skimmer boats cleaning up the oil slicks. Other endangered species living in the gulf include the sperm whale, and birds such as the piping plover and the gulf sturgeon.
National Wildlife Federation senior scientist Dr. Doug Inkley explains, these numbers tell only part of the story: "The deaths of dolphins and sea turtles are particularly tragic, because we know we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg with those that have been washed up onshore and tested."

New York Daily News reporters Matthew Lysiak and Helen Kennedy reported that interviews were conducted with BP contractors. The contractors took the Daily News to locations where dolphin carcasses were dead and rotting. The contractor interviewed said, "When we found this dolphin it was filled with oil. Oil was just pouring out of it. It was the saddest darn thing to look at."

The interviewed contractor continues, "There is a lot of cover-up for BP. They specifically informed us that they don't want these pictures of the dead animals. They know the ocean will wipe away most of the evidence. It's important to me that people know the truth about what's going on here. The things I've seen... They just aren't right. All the life out here is just full of oil. I'm going to show you what BP never showed the President."

Benjamin says that if you live anywhere near the spill, and see something like this,TAKE PICTURES, or video if possible. They're trying to cover it up, get people to forget just how bad this is by turning into a clinical discussion of drill bits and top kills. It's working: Louisiana Republicans are already going back to "drill, baby, drill" as if it never happened. As if it wasn't conservative "pro-business" bullshit that created this situation in the first place.

Take photos, if you can, and spread them around, if you can. We can't let these people forget the crimes that this careless, brutal, bankrupt ideology allowed to take place.

New Canadian IP Law

By the way, the Canadians have put a new bill forward enacting something a bit like the DMCA. It's a fascinating little bait-and-switch. It reduces the costs for individual, non-commercial infringement, adds exceptions for mashups and whatnot, and allows for parody and satire and education and all that sort of thing. No notice-and-takedown either. Sounds good, right?

...Except that, just like the DMCA, you'll get slapped down if you break DRM. At all. No personal use exemption. Big, big fine for doing it.

It's amazing. In one stroke, in one line, the rest of it is totally invalidated. You can't do anything with media without breaking DRM, since DRM is on everything! It's on DVDs, it's on games, it's on online video, it's on the vast majority of online music, it's on e-books, it's on everything. The only exceptions are CDs and actual books, both of which are probably going to start getting phased out precisely because of this DRM stuff.

Geist is cautiously optimistic. I'm much less so. It's clear that the rest of the provisions are a farce without (at the very least) a personal, fair-use exemption for the DRM bit. It's a trojan horse, and Canada shouldn't let it through the gate.

Another Account From the Raid

From AJ:

Al Jazeera's Jamal Elshayyal, who reported from the ship as the raid began, was also sent to Turkey by Israel after being released by the Israelis.

Elshayyal said that he witnessed some of the killings, and confirmed that at least "one person was shot through the top of the head from [the helicopter] above".

Our producer was on the top deck when the ship was attacked and said that within a few minutes of seeing the Israeli helicopters, there were shots being fired from above.

"The first shots [coming from Israeli boats at sea] were tear gas, sounds grenades and rubber coated steel bullets," Elshayyal said.

"Live shots came five minutes after that. There was definetly live fire from the air and from the sea as well."

He confirmed that some passengers took apart some of the ship's railing bars to defend themselves as they saw the Israeli soldiers approaching.

"After the shooting and the first deaths, people put up white flags and signs in English and Hebrew," he said.

"An Israeli [on the ship] asked the soldiers to take away the injured, but they did not, and the injured died on the ship."

So, wait, they were picking people off from the helicopters? With live rounds? How on earth is that "defensive"?

And it looks like we now know where the "metal bars" come from. They were railing. Which makes perfect sense, and would have been trivially obvious to anybody who was on the ship. Like, say, the commandos. So why didn't the IDF say anything when they were yelling about the horrible weapons on board?

Edit: And another, from ABC:

The activists on board the ship told a very different version of events from the one released by the Israeli military.

A Canadian on board, Farooq Burney, described watching an elderly man bleed to death. The head of a Turkish charity that organized the aid flotilla said an Indonesian doctor was shot in the stomach and a photographer was shot in the forehead.

"They [Israeli commandos] were trying to land on the boat. So obviously there was this hand-to-hand combat and during that process the people on the boat were basically able to disarm some of the soldiers because they did have guns with them," Burney told Reuters. "So they basically took the guns away from them and took the cartridges out and threw them away."

Asked if anyone had used the guns against the Israeli commandos, Burney said, "No, not at all."

Speaks for itself.

Can We Retire That "Just Defending Themselves" Line?

Because, apparently, the commandos roughed up the peaceful protesters on the other ships. And then, later, they got roughed up again in the Israeli prison:

Adam Shapiro, one of the organizers, also reminds us of something that too many people are ignoring: we have footage of the commandos firing live ammunition as they boarded.  The passengers were defending themselves.

Not that it matters. Both the Dems and the Republicans would back Israel no matter how brutal the crime, and no matter how terrible the international isolation that follows.  The Dems are especially showing that—like with the Health Care bill—there is no line that you could cross that would cause them to break ranks.

Morals don't matter. Ethics don't matter. Humanitarian concerns don't matter. NOTHING matters. All that they care about is sticking with the party line.

Whoops

Might as well just quote:

My friend Ibn Kafka has a wonderful post catching Israel in a propaganda f**k-up. The Israeli Ministry Foreign Affairs posted on its Flickr account pictures of the terrifying weapons they found on the IHH ship. You know, things like bulletproof vests for emergency services, pepper spray, kitchen knives, bits of wood and other weapons of mass destruction. Except that they did not realize that Flickr displays EXIF data, which is the information that cameras record when they take pictures: aperture, shutter speed, flash status... and the time the picture was taken.

Which, as Flickr commenters quickly pointed out, was sometime in 2006.

 Yet more proof that one needs to be very, very skeptical about official claims about these things. Especially when the IDF made a great show of confiscating all independent footage of the raid.

What Rules Apply if it Isn't War Between Hamas and Israel?

You'd think so. All this San Remo stuff requires it. I'd assumed that San Remo applies. But I've read a few comments around that seem to imply otherwise. I don't believe it is IS a war, since Gaza is not a a state, but an occupied territory or protectorate.

So what are the rules if they aren't? Well, let's turn to the Convention of the High Seas, article 22:

1. Except where acts of interference derive from powers conferred by treaty, a warship which encounters a foreign merchant ship on the high seas is not justified in boarding her unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting: (a) That the ship is engaged in piracy; or (b) That the ship is engaged in the slave trade; or (c) That though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship."

That seems fairly straightforward. In fact, the more I think about it, the more it feels like using San Remo at all puts the cart before the horse, since it absolves Israel of its influence and control of the Gaza strip. It puts all the responsibilities of a sovereign state on Gaza, without the rights of a sovereign state.

Another Story From an Activist

Again, Guardian:

An Algerian activist, who only gave her first name as Sabrina, accused Israeli commandos of taking a one-year-old child hostage.
"They point a gun to his head in front of his Turkish parents to force the captain of our ship to stop sailing," she said.

And, honestly, what can one say in response to that?

"Shot to Kill"

Another Guardian piece:

First accounts from activists on board the ships began to emerge today with some claiming the Israeli forces who stormed the largest ship in the flotilla – the Mavi Marmara – shot to kill and used electric stun guns against them.

The taser thing fits, considering it happened against the other ships. The "shoot to kill" comment makes sense, though it's more contentious, considering the footage we saw from the Mavi.

Again, the IDF narrative and video aren't a real explanation or even a real defense. They're just cover for the Usual Suspects to make the Usual Arguments. Nothing more.

Just in Case the "Blockade Action" Gets Defended (Edit: "Contraband")

A fair number of commentators are pointing to the law of the sea, and its allowance for interception of blockade-runners in international waters, as proof that Israel's actions were legal. I already pointed out that the "blockade" isn't really one, since Gaza is a territory effectively controlled by Israel and the blockade isn't acknowledged internationally. Even if it were, though, look at this:

Section III : Enemy vessels and aircraft exempt from attack

Classes of vessels exempt from attack

47. The following classes of enemy vessels are exempt from attack:

(a) hospital ships;

(b) small craft used for coastal rescue operations and other medical transports;

(c) vessels granted safe conduct by agreement between the belligerent parties including:

(i) cartel vessels, e.g., vessels designated for and engaged in the transport of prisoners of war;
(ii) vessels engaged in humanitarian missions, including vessels carrying supplies indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, and vessels engaged in relief actions and rescue operations.

Bolding is mine. This was, from the very beginning, described as a humanitarian mission. Even the Israelis don't substantially dispute that. This was absolutely a "relief action". Section 67, the part with the blockade exemptions, specifically states that it is subject to these "basic rules".

Therefore, the assault was not legal. Period.

Edit: It should also be noted that any blockade is not legitimate if—as stated by section 102 of the treaty—it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.

Considering that the Gazan economy has been effectively destroyed by the blockade, and that they cannot even get fresh food, it is clear that the blockade is both excessive and dangerous. Section 102 applies.

Re-Edit: Ah. The "basic rules" are 38-46, not 47.  That said, the boats were inspected at neutral ports to ensure that they were not carrying contraband, and were still a humanitarian mission, NOT "neutral merchants", which is what 67 is about. But technically 47 requires agreement between the belligerent parties, so it might come under 67 instead of 47. If that's the case, they could be raided for "contraband". So what IS contraband? Well...

148. Contraband is defined as goods which are ultimately destined for territory under the control of the enemy and which may be susceptible for use in armed conflict.

149. In order to exercise the right of capture referred to in paragraphs 146(a) and 147, the belligerent must have published contraband lists. The precise nature of a belligerent's contraband list may vary according to the particular circumstances of the armed conflict. Contraband lists shall be reasonably specific.

150. Goods not on the belligerent's contraband list are 'free goods', that is, not subject to capture. As a minimum, 'free goods' shall include the following:

(b) articles intended exclusively for the treatment of the wounded and sick and for the prevention of disease;

(c) clothing, bedding, essential foodstuffs, and means of shelter for the civilian population in general, and women and children in particular, provided there is not serious reason to believe that such goods will be diverted to other purpose, or that a definite military advantage would accrue to the enemy by their substitution for enemy goods that would thereby become available for military purposes;

(f) other goods not susceptible for use in armed conflict

Now, it may be argued that building materials might be contraband under 150(c), but we're talking about basic things like concrete here, and apparently the ships didn't even include that sort of thing. (The Israelis said that nothing on the ships was actually prohibited. Ironic, that.) 

More importantly, however, paragraph 149 requires "published contraband lists". From what I've seen, there aren't any. Israel has been very closemouthed about what it does and doesn't consider contraband. It was like pulling teeth to find out that things like spices and fresh meat aren't allowed. 

So even if the blockade were legal, which it isn't...

...Israel would still have no right to attack and capture!

Miranda's Toast

In a 5-4 decision (how surprising), the Supreme Court has effectively eviscerated your Miranda rights:

In Berghuis v. Thompkins, the decision announced today, the Court ruled 5-4 that a suspect has to speak in order to assert the right to remain silent. Van Chester Thompkins was given his Miranda warnings and remained quiet for almost 3 hours. During that time, officers continued the interrogation and Thompkins eventually made an admission. A federal court found that he had asserted his right to remain silent by actually remaining silent, and that officers should have ended the questioning. The Supreme Court reversed.

The majority said that if officers give Miranda warnings to a suspect, they may begin questioning and continue to question unless the person clearly and unambiguously says he wants to remain silent or wants a lawyer. Police do not have to expressly ask a suspect to waive their rights. If the person shows incredible stamina--like Thompkins--and manages to remain silent through hours of intense interrogation, he will have "waived" his rights if he eventually caves in to pressure.

And the Court has placed a substantial burden on suspects to invoke their rights with great precision. A number of lower courts applying the clear and unambiguous standard have been quite demanding, finding that statements such as "I think it's about time for me to stop talking" and "I think I would like to talk to a lawyer" are not clear invocations of the right to remain silent or the right to counsel.

The Court's opinion is the most important Miranda decision in a decade. The ruling is breathtaking even to those, like me, who believe that Miranda's safeguards were already eroded. The Court has formally transformed Miranda from a rule aimed at protecting suspects to one that protects police. Miranda's safeguards for suspects are now mostly symbolic. So long as officers give warnings, their interrogation practices will be largely immune from any legal challenge. As the justices have noted in other cases, if warnings are given and a statement is obtained, it is very difficult for a defendant to contend that his admissions were coerced.

I'd make a crack about "keeping your powder dry", but as Weisselberg at Huffpo noted, Kagan was all over this thing.

Makes no difference if it's a Democrat or a Republican. Your rights are still being carved away with a chainsaw.

Turkey Moving to War Footing?

Turkey's response may be even more drastic than I had thought. Middle East Monitor:

In the wake of Israel's assault on and hijacking of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla, relations between Turkey and Israel are set to take a dangerous turn. Sources in Turkey claim that the Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, his army Chief of Staff and the country's Head of Intelligence are considering putting Turkey on to a war footing with the Jewish state "unless the Israelis release within twelve hours the Turkish citizens who were on the flotilla and are now being held prisoner". Such a decisive stand would be a major development in the history of relations between the two states.

The same sources say that Israel would be surprised at such a move if it is taken by Turkey, predicting a "hot warning" at most. The US administration has, it is claimed, tried unsuccessfully to dissuade Ankara from taking such a position, which would change the balance of power in the world, not just in the Middle East. President Obama has apparently told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Ankara is both offended and angry, and that the Israeli government should act to set up an independent inquiry before it's too late.

These claims come after Israelis living in Turkey have been advised by their government to leave the country for their own safety.

This isn't the most reliable source. But it does show how serious this is. It also shows that Israel may have badly miscalculated. Then again, since when has the Bibi government not messed things up, except with putting the screws on Obama 'n Co?

Turkish PM's Response and the Non-Uniqueness of Israel

And a third Guardian piece, this time on Turkey:

"Israel cannot clean the blood off its hands through any excuse," said Recep Tayyip Erdogan. "It is no longer possible to cover up or ignore Israel's lawlessness. This bloody massacre by Israel on ships that were taking humanitarian aid to Gaza deserves every kind of curse."

The trenchant warnings, in remarks to the Turkish parliament and cabinet in Ankara after Erdogan rushed home from a truncated Latin America tour, suggested the "special" relationship between Israel and the rising Muslim power straddling the Middle East and Europe is dead.

Turkish analysts viewed the flotilla attack as a tipping point in the balance of power in the Middle East, with Israel finally forfeiting its "strategic" links with an emerging regional power.

Relations between Turkey and Israel, close for decades, have been under strain since early last year when the Israeli onslaught on Gaza left 1,400 people dead. Erdogan felt personally betrayed by the Israeli invasion.

The flotilla attack looks like the final straw, ending a period of almost 20 years when Turkey played a crucial role as Israel's Muslim ally, discreetly seeking to mediate between Israel and its Arab foes, and acting as an American proxy in places where Washington hesitated to go.

"Today is a turning point," said the prime minister to repeated applause in Ankara. "They once again showed their ability to perpetrate slaughters … We warn Israel not to test Turkey's patience." Israel had to "absolutely be punished by all means," he said.

Erdogan tapped the strong emotions erupting in Turkey where support for the Palestinians is total, but where the elite has also traditionally maintained good relations with Israel.

The Israeli attack was on a Turkish boat. Most of the dead were Turks. The flotilla was organised by a large Islamist charity based in a region of Istanbul which is militantly Muslim. The charity is said to be close to Erdogan's governing AK party.

 You know, if Free Gaza really were all about provoking a conflict to end the blockade and further isolate Israel, I think it's safe to say that they would have succeeded beyond all rational expectations. Israel really does only have America as its sole remaining ally. (it might have two, if you count Canada, but that has more to do with the current government than any deep-set public allegiance.)

This is what happens when a government is cobbled together between nutcase nationalists and power-hungry conservatives. Not all Israelis support this nonsense. In fact, I'd say that most don't, judging by what I've seen and read. Certainly there are protests aplenty going on in Israel over this, and the fact that Kadima has the most seats in the Knesset, not either Likud or its nutbar allies, speaks volumes about the fact that Israelis are not a bloc.  It is not a comment on either Judaism or Zionism, either; there are Jews and Zionists aplenty who are sickened by what has happened, and what continues to happen.

What I think this shows, instead, is the dangers of reflexive conservatism and hardcore ethnic nationalism, unchecked by either democratic institutions or simple common sense. Even a state created for the best of reasons, addressing the greatest of wrongs, can go hideously off-track. These forces can corrupt even the best of us, and once they are a part of the civil discourse, they are hideously difficult to remove. It's hardly an solely Israeli problem. But we must always remember that Israel is not immune to it.

Egypt Opens Its Border

Also in the Guardian:

Egypt opened its border with the Gaza Strip today amid mounting criticism of Israel's violent raid on a flotilla of aid ships attempting to break the three-year blockade of the enclave.

Thousands of Palestinians crossed the border at Rafah as Turkey called for Israel to be punished for the attack, which left at least nine people dead. Volatility in the area was further underlined by reports that five members of Islamic Jihad were killed in Gaza in two separate attacks.

The Israeli army confirmed its aircraft had shot at militants in Gaza, killing three, after they had fired rockets into southern Israel, and that two gunmen were killed after breaching Israel's border fence.

Earlier, putting aside his hostility to Hamas, which has links to his political opponent, the Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, ordered that the crossing be opened until further notice. The move is being seen as a response to increasing Arab anger at what is perceived as Egyptian complicity in the blockade.

The border normally only opens once a month for a few days.

An Egyptian security source told Reuters: "Egypt opened its border with the Gaza Strip to allow humanitarian and medical aid to enter. The border will remain open for an unlimited time."

So now this blockade has been a complete failure. Egypt has opened up their borders, so the Palestinians can get whatever they like. The Israelis can't stop it, unless they either go after Egypt—which would be ludicrous—or close down the Gazan/Egyptian border.
Since this is going to be an open border, it means that all the munitions and war materiel that wasn't on the aid ships can now be easily shipped from Egypt to Gaza, too! Israel's security has actually been harmed by this nonsense!

Activists: "Israeli Forces Fired First"

Guardian:

Arriving at Istanbul's Ataturk airport with her one-year-old baby, Turkish activist Nilufer Cetin said Israeli troops opened fire before boarding the Turkish-flagged ferry Mavi Marmara, which was the scene of the worst clashes and all the fatalities. Israeli officials have said that the use of armed force began when its boarding party was attacked.

"It was extremely bad and very tough clashes took place. The Mavi Marmara is filled with blood," said Cetin, whose husband is the Mavi Marmara's chief engineer...

..."The attack on the Mavi Marmara came in an instant: they attacked it with 12 or 13 attack boats and also with commandos from helicopters. We heard the gunshots over our portable radio handsets, which we used to communicate with the Mavi Marmara, because our ship communication system was disrupted. There were three or four helicopters also used in the attack. We were told by Mavi Marmara their crew and civilians were being shot at and windows and doors were being broken by Israelis."

Six Greek activists who returned to Athens accused Israeli commandos of using electric shocks during the raid.

Dimitris Gielalis, who had been aboard the Sfendoni, told reporters: "Suddenly from everywhere we saw inflatables coming at us, and within seconds fully equipped commandos came up on the boat. They came up and used plastic bullets, we had beatings, we had electric shocks, any method we can think of, they used."

Michalis Grigoropoulos, who was at the wheel of the Free Mediterranean, said: "We were in international waters. The Israelis acted like pirates, completely out of the normal way that they conduct nautical exercises, and seized our ship. They took us hostage, pointing guns at our heads; they descended from helicopters and fired tear gas and bullets. There was absolutely nothing we could do … Those who tried to resist forming a human ring on the bridge were given electric shocks.

Grigoropoulos, who insisted the ship was full of humanitarian aid bound for Gaza "and nothing more", said that, once detained, the human rights activists were not allowed to contact a lawyer or the Greek embassy in Tel Aviv. "They didn't let us go to the toilet, eat or drink water and throughout they videoed us. They confiscated everything, mobile phones, laptops, cameras and personal effects. They only allowed us to keep our papers."

Remember, these latter ships were not the Turkish Mavi Marmara.  But they still got the holy hell beat out of them, had their records of the attack seized, and were apparently kept in privation after capture. As I said earlier, the whole "they jumped us" talking point was used because it was appropriate to the footage they were able to isolate that would make them look the best. That's why they seized anything and everything that would contradict them. 

Now, though, it's clear that the whole "they jumped us" thing wasn't intended to be credible. It's just cover. It allows those who would suffer serious political fallout or cognitive dissonance to have something to fixate on that will justify the position they so desperately want to maintain.  They'll carefully ignore the electrocution of harmless activists and fixate on the few who decided to defend themselves, because it makes their brains hurt a little less.

They're lost. Hell with 'em. The question is what the rest of us decide.

Anti-Israel Activist Loses Her Eye For the Trouble

No, I'm not making this up:

An American solidarity activist was shot in the face with a tear gas canister during a demonstration in Qalandiya, today. Emily Henochowicz is currently in Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem undergoing surgery to remove her left eye, following the demonstration that was held in protest to Israel’s murder of at least 10 civilians aboard the Gaza Freedom Flotilla in international waters this morning.
21-year old Emily Henochowicz was hit in the face with a tear gas projectile fired directly at her by an Israeli soldier during the demonstration at Qalandiya checkpoint today. Israeli occupation forces fired volleys of tear gas at unarmed Palestinian and international protesters, causing mass panic amongst the demonstrators and those queuing at the largest checkpoint separating the West Bank and Israel.

The source is unreliable (not scoop, but the source that Scoop is working from), but it's pretty hard to fake a lost eye.

She is an artist, by the way. Icing on the cake, isn't it just?

IDF Shot First? (Plus: Legal Ramifications)

RawStory has linked to a repost of the flotilla footage that I had linked to earlier.

Israeli forces assert they came under attack by the pro-Palestine civilian group, and video released by the IDF appears to show one soldier being tossed overboard amid a scuffle with unidentified individuals wielding melee weapons, like clubs and chairs.

However, in raw video captured by an Al Jazeera producer and published to YouTube late Monday, two journalists provide a play-by-play of the harrowing event as pops and cracks echo in the background. Even before the Israeli forces were aboard, one says, they were pelting the boat with tear gas and stun grenades, injuring numerous people.

Then he confirms the first death, saying the individual was killed by "munitions," but not specifying whether it was a bullet or something else. Then he confirms that Israeli forces were boarding the ship.

Another of the reporters featured in the video works for the Iranian network Press TV. "We are being hit by tear gas, stun grenades, we have navy ships on either side, helicopters overhead," he said. "We are being attacked from every single side. This is in international waters, not Israeli waters, not in the 68-mile exclusion zone. We are being attacked in international waters completely illegally."
"The organizers are telling me now, they are raising a white flag -- they are raising a white flag to the Israeli army," the Al Jazeera reporter said. "This is after one person has been killed; a civilian has been killed by munition. That number could be more ... Despite the white flag being raised, despite the white flag being raised, the Israeli army is still shooting, still firing live munitions."

Here is the video in question.


Disturbingly, the reporter is reporting that Israeli forces are trying to block phones and destroy satellite feeds to the outside world. The attempts to squelch independent reportage really raise questions about the IDF's credibility; it suggests that they knew going in that there would be casualties, and were trying to shut people up before the outside world figured it out.

That would be par for the course for, say, China; but isn't it Israel's status as the "sole regional democracy" that justifies supporting it in the first place?

In any case, you hear gunshots right off the bat, and it appears that gunfire is coming from the boats around the ship. Clearly, then, the gunfire did not originate with the activists. One of the reporters at the beginning said that they were under fire with tear gas and stun grenades from all sides, so those sounds may have been from those weapons, but it didn't sound like tear gas or grenade launchers; it sounded like straight-up gunfire.

In any case, Craig Murray brings up a good point: even if this isn't piracy, it is an act of aggression against ships flying under a Turkish flag:

The Law of the Sea is quite plain that, when an incident takes place
on a ship on the high seas (outside anybody's territorial waters) the applicable law is that of the flag state of the ship on which the incident occurred. In legal terms, the Turkish ship was Turkish territory. There are therefore two clear legal possibilities.
Possibility one is that the Israeli commandos were acting on behalf of the government of Israel in killing the activists on the ships. In that case Israel is in a position of war with Turkey, and the act falls under international jurisdiction as a war crime.
Possibility two is that, if the killings were not authorised Israeli military action, they were acts of murder under Turkish jurisdiction. If Israel does not consider itself in a position of war with Turkey, then it must hand over the commandos involved for trial in Turkey under Turkish law.
In brief, if Israel and Turkey are not at war, then it is Turkish law which is applicable to what happened on the ship. It is for Turkey, not Israel, to carry out any inquiry or investigation into events and to initiate any prosecutions. Israel is obliged to hand over indicted personnel for prosecution.

This is why you don't attack ships like this in international waters: because if you aren't already at war with them, you damned well will be at war with them. Israel may have committed an act of war against Turkey in order to stop a shipment of humanitarian aid to a people who aren't even allowed fresh meat or a tub of margarine. Madness.

Confiscated "Weapons" From the Flotilla

I got a chance to see the confiscated "weapons" from the flotilla.

A few matched sets of galley knives, a kirpan, and a few utility knives do not an arsenal make.

Yep, the US Rolled Over

Here's the official response:

The United States is deeply disturbed by the recent violence and regrets the tragic loss of life and injuries suffered among those involved in the incident last night aboard the Gaza-bound ships.  We are working to ascertain the facts.  We expect a credible and transparent investigation and strongly urge the Israeli government to investigate the incident fully.As I stated in the Chamber in December 2008, when we were confronted by a similar situation, mechanisms exist for the transfer of humanitarian assistance to Gaza by member states and groups that want to do so.  These non-provocative and non-confrontational mechanisms should be the ones used for the benefit of all those in Gaza. Direct delivery by sea is neither appropriate nor responsible, and certainly not effective, under the circumstances.
The United States remains deeply concerned by the suffering of civilians in Gaza, and the deterioration of the situation there, including the humanitarian and human rights situation.  We continue to believe the situation is unsustainable...

The rest is inconsequential babble about the peace process that Bibi could give a shit about.
Definitely a roll-over. Did not mention the piratical nature of the attack, did not condemn the Israelis for either violating their RoE or for having ridiculous RoE to begin with, and did not acknowledge any of the vital materiel that the Israelis are not letting through.

This might just be State boilerplate awaiting a real White House response, but I don't believe so. The lesson is clear. Netanyahu can now act however he chooses, confident that Barry will have his back. No matter what he does.

Sullivan on the Flotilla

Andrew Sullivan isn't exactly an Israel-hater, but here he is on the footage of activists trying to fight off the commandos:

They are engaging in self-defense. More to the point: they are civilians confronting one of the best militaries in the world. They killed no soldiers; their weapons were improvised; the death toll in the fight is now deemed to be up to 19 - all civilians. It staggers me to read defenses of what the Israelis have done. They attacked a civilian flotilla in international waters breaking no law. When they met fierce if asymmetric resistance, they opened fire. And we are now being asked to regard the Israelis as the victims.
Seriously.

This is like a mini-Gaza all over again. The Israelis don't seem to grasp that Western militaries don't get to murder large numbers of civilians because they don't like them, or because they could, on a far tinier scale, hurt Israelis. And you sure don't have a right to kill them because they resist having their ship commandeered, in international waters. The Israelis seem to be making decisions as if they can get away with anything. It's time the US reminded them in ways they cannot mistake that they cannot.

I'm still very, very skeptical that the U.S. will do a damned thing. I'd like to be wrong, but I don't expect to be.
And, yes, Sullivan is right. Since the blockade has not been accepted under international law—nor could it be, considering that Gaza is in fact under Israeli control and not an enemy state—Israel had no right to attack those ships. Israel has always maintained that acts of violence are only illegal under international law if they are aggressive in nature. They maintain that defensive violence and territorial acquisition is legitimate, in order to justify the settlements in occupied lands.

Well, that's what's happened here: defense. Even if the activists had fired on the descending commandos, they still would have had the right of it, because it was the commandos who are the aggressors. They didn't, of course, and apparently there is footage out there of the Israelis firing long before their first commando hit the deck of the Mavi Marmara. But it's still important to be clear about the irrelevance of the "debate".

Bibi's Doubling Down

Well, according to Fox (no link. Ever.) it looks like Bibi's doubling down. He's saying that the attack was entirely "self-defense", that the activists were all Al Qaeda stooges, and that the military has his "full backing". He probably has to, since the "they had sticks! STICKS!" line just isn't going to cut it, not when people bring up the problem of this being pretty naked high-seas piracy.

(If not an act of war against Turkey.)

But he must be really confident that Obama's toeing the Israeli line.  He's pretty much left Obama twisting in the breeze. Either Barry backs Bibi to the hilt and loses the entire Muslim world and any hope of positive influence in the middle east, as well as any lingering remnants of his mystique as a peacemaker and fair broker—or he criticizes Israel and the apologist wing in the United States goes insane. He can't stay on the fence, either, since both sides will claim that it confirms their worst instincts about the man.

All this as oil continues to pour into the Gulf of Mexico, too. Obama isn't even really responsible for that, that's entirely the result of Republican ideology, policies and practices, but he's being forced to wear this. He did not need this, and would be entirely justified in telling Netanyahu to shove it. But I suspect that he won't.

Legality of Israel's Flotilla Attacks

Forget the whole "they came at us with knives, so we gunned them down" defense that Israel is putting forward for their attacks on the Gaza relief flotilla.

They attacked the flotilla in international waters. You do NOT do that. It is just about as illegal as anything can be in international waters. It is pretty much an act of war. It's also blatantly stupid besides, since it means that your civilian ships are now fair game.

That all this was pulled to stop humanitarian aid from reaching Gaza is just insane.

Edit: There appears to be a video of the beginning of the attack, and it appears to show the commandos firing first.  And what the hell is going on with twitter? They seem to be blocking hashtags about the incident. They were all over Iran.

"A Stark and Potentially Durable Change in Politics"

So here's Politico on last night's establishment bloodbath:

The anti-establishment, anti-incumbent fevers on display Tuesday are not new. The ideologically charged, grass-roots activists flexing their muscle in this week’s primary showdowns are the same breed as primary voters who four years ago stripped the Democratic nomination away from Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who later won as an independent.

What’s now clear, in a way that wasn’t before, is that these results reflect a genuine national phenomenon, not simply isolated spasms in response to single issues or local circumstances.

This is a stark and potentially durable change in politics. The old structures that protected incumbent power are weakening. New structures, from partisan news outlets to online social networks, are giving anti-establishment politicians access to two essential elements of effective campaigns: publicity and financial support.

In effect, the anti-institutional forces that coalesced in recent years now look like an institutional force of their own.

All I have to say is: Good. Been pointing out for years now that the activist wings are more powerful than they know, or that D.C. will admit. Well, now they know. And so does D.C.

Anti-Incumbent, Anti-Elite

Well, looks like it's abundantly clear what's going on right now. Sestak beat Specter in Pennsylvania, Rand won in Kentucky, and Arkansas' Democratic primary is going to a runoff.

 Why? Simple. People wanted a change and didn't get it. I think there is a serious danger that people will misinterpret this as some sort of vindication of the teabaggers. It's not.

It is, instead, an indication that people are pissed off about how betrayed they feel by their own elites.  They sense that the people at the top are not looking out for them, but just looking out for themselves. The teabaggers are getting manipulated into being ticked off at the wrong people—the ones who aren't just anti-Dem reactionaries—but it's being motivated by the same basic problem.

And, yes, that problem is the economy.  Unemployment is still far too high. Opportunity is still lacking. People are still desperately insecure about their own financial future. And, most importantly, the only people who are benefiting from economic and productivity growth are the wealthiest 1%. That ain't right, and people sense that that ain't right, but they've been so thoroughly indoctrinated to fear and despise "class warfare" that they're casting about for other justifications. So they rage about Obamacare, and about TARP, and about cap-and-trade, and everything else that is so "elitist".

Thing is, they are right. They are being screwed over and betrayed by an elite. They're just being mislead as to who that elite is. They're angry at an elite, but it's not the right elite. So it doesn't accomplish anything.

In the meantime, though, they're still ticked, and so incumbents (an elite) are still going to take it on the chin. Bad news for the Dems; but then again, they've richly, richly earned this.

Jeffrey Goldberg is a Goddamned Idiot

How stupid do you have to be to write this:

All of this analysis would be true if America were using its drones to launch unprovoked attacks against targets in Pakistan. But it is not. These attacks are provoked. And who is doing the provoking? Jihadists, who, for all the obvious reasons, want us to believe that it is our actions that cause the violence they inflict on us. Ask yourself this question: Did American drone attacks in Pakistan cause 9/11? Or the attack on the U.S.S. Cole? Or the embassy bombings in Africa?

No. Really. HOW? How is it possible?

It is the most trivially obvious thing in the world to realize that people are going to pay one hell of a lot more attention to attacks on their friends and family than they are to attacks that happened almost a decade ago and almost a world away, and they are sure as hell not going to pay much attention to this sort of reasoning when the attacks are being made on people who were not directly connected with either the Cole or 9/11 bombings? Yes, they might be jihadists—though predators aren't exactly the most accurate platform in America's arsenal so there's a good chance that many might not be—but they are not going to agree with Goldberg's reasoning, any more than Goldberg would believe that blowing up a building in DC is acceptable because of what America got up to in, say, El Salvador.


Look, idiot, this is absurdly simple. The whole "predator attacks cause more retaliatory attacks" idea is based on the notion that they don't care whether or not you think your actions are justified. It's not a normative argument, it's a factual argument: bombs drop, they get mad, they "respond". The fact that the bombing is a response to something that they did does not mean that they aren't responding in turn to what you did. That's what escalation IS: response building on response building on response. Nobody gives a shit about "he started it!"

That's why one has to be thoughtful about any sort of military response to terrorism: even if it is justified, it's going to carry consequences, and you have to recognize and understand those consequences before making those decisions. Saying "he started it!" is what a CHILD does.

(Not that it's surprising to see someone from the Atlantic acting like a child. They provide a platform for Jane Galt, after all.)

The truly hilarious part of the story is here:

"No terrorism group has the word 'terrorism' in its name. They see themselves as reluctant fighters, always retaliating, never initiating."

Well, nobody should say that terrorists never learn. Looks like they learned that little trick reeeeal well.

Copyright and Information Asymmetry

I'd been reading Michael Geist's pieces on the new Canadian copyright bill—which looks to be following the DMCA model—and I had a thought about the debate.
The debate over copyright is as much about information asymmetry as anything else.

Information asymmetry, in economics, is the idea that a purchaser and seller have inequal amounts of information about the value of a good. A used-car seller knows more than the buyer about the soundness of the vehicle, for example. The buyer might not know whether or not the car is a "lemon", so the price he pays isn't necessarily going to correspond to the actual value of the car. Ditto with everything from home loans to first dates; people don't know everything they need to know. In a lot of cases, the seller is deliberately keeping them from knowing it.

Creative works, especially narrative creative works, are much the same. If you're buying a game, movie, album or book, you aren't generally going to know how good it is until you've already bought it. By then, of course, it's too late; you can't get your money back at the theatre for a movie you hated, and you can't get a refund on a terrible game. If it's good, then great! But if it's bad, you're stuck.

In turn, the presumption that animates enforcement copyright law is that if you could view a work for free, you wouldn't pay for it. Remember, it's not theft per se; nobody is deprived of the use of a good, just the ability to control who can gain access to the work. You don't pay, you don't watch. (Or listen. Or play. Or whatever.)

Since these creative products are information, then, that means consumers are inevitably and inescapably operating at an information deficit. They don't know that the movie is worth anything to them until after they've seen it—but by then they have already seen it! And if they've seen it, why on earth would they pay for it? The whole industry depends on information asymmetry to work. People can never pay what something is worth to them. They're always at risk of being suckered. Always.

Then again, perhaps it is the presumption that is wrong. Perhaps consumers would, if prompted, pay what they think that something is worth. Homo Economicus wouldn't, since he wouldn't part with a dime he didn't have to if he didn't have a gun to his head. But real people don't think that way.

It makes me wonder. If you took away the barriers, would people pay what something is worth? Is the presumption wrong? Or will consumers always be on the edge of getting suckered?

Krugman: "Why Libertarianism Doesn't Work"

The Krug-man sums it up:

Thinking about BP and the Gulf: in this old interview, Milton Friedman says that there’s no need for product safety regulation, because corporations know that if they do harm they’ll be sued.

Interviewer: So tort law takes care of a lot of this ..

Friedman: Absolutely, absolutely.

Meanwhile, in the real world:

In the wake of last month’s catastrophic Gulf Coast oil spill, Sen. Lisa Murkowski blocked a bill that would have raised the maximum liability for oil companies after a spill from a paltry $75 million to $10 billion. The Republican lawmaker said the bill, introduced by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), would have unfairly hurt smaller oil companies by raising the costs of oil production. The legislation is “not where we need to be right now” she said.

And don’t say that we just need better politicians. If libertarianism requires incorruptible politicians to work, it’s not serious.

The problem with libertarianism (well, one of them) is that economic power almost always translates into political power. That political power gets exploited to build greater economic power, which translates into more political power, ad nauseum.

The only way you can prevent that is to use political power to prevent it. That gets harder and harder over time, as economic power gets concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. And it requires loci of political power that are separate from those of economic power. That's what democracy is supposed to do.

(It isn't, of course. Economic power has been translated into political power, so much so that most people believe that their votes can't really change a damned thing. BP will probably skate on this. But that's the general idea.)

Kagan's the Nominee

So Obama's moving the court to the right, replacing Kennedy with the "ideological cipher" that supports giving the executive branch carte blanche.

Ah, well, not much to be done about it now. As Greenwald said:

Our politics is nothing if not tribal, and the duty of Every Good Democrat is now to favor Kagan's confirmation.  Conservatives refused to succumb to those rules and ended up with Sam Alito instead of Harriet Miers, but they had a much different relationship to George Bush than progressives have to Obama (i.e., conservatives -- as they proved several times late in Bush's second term [Miers, immigration, Dubai Ports] -- were willing to oppose their leader whey they disagreed).  The White House knows that progressives will never try to oppose any important Obama initiative, and even if they were inclined, they lack the power to do so (largely because unconditional support guarantees impotence).

Not much to add to that. Conservatives oppose, and get their wish. Progressives acquiesce, and get trampled.  You'd think the latter would have figured it out by now. But if they had, they'd probably still be calling themselves "liberals".

Britain's Hung Parliament

It's too soon to predict exactly how the British House of Commons is going to turn out. It's quite likely that it will be a "hung parliament" however, where nobody has a majority but one party (the conservatives, likely) have a plurality.

Considering this is the case in Canada as well, and has been for a while, it does raise the question about whether or not this will become the rule of thumb for Westminster systems in general. It also suggests that the main argument for FPTP systems—that they generate stable two-party systems with clear winners—simply does not apply anymore.

At best, you can hope for stable coalitions, and you're as likely to get that from a proportional system. Considering there is literally nothing else that justifies FPTP, the lesson is clear.

Crist Goes Indie

Not exactly the greatest of surprises. He was going to get (as Mike Allen put it) "shellacked" by the hard right.

I agree with Allen that this probably isn't going to help him. Incumbents are going to be under fire in November; an incumbent without the benefit of party identification is only going to be that much worse off. It was inevitable—Republican primaries actually mean something—but he's still not in good shape. He might lose the seat, and the Dems might win it.

In the long run, though, this only benefits the conservatives in the Republican party. They've demonstrated their power. They've pushed the party to the right, and they've made the politicos that much more worried about them. When the Republicans regain control, that's going to ensure that conservatives get much more of a say than they would otherwise.

For progressives this should prove...instructive. If they're willing to learn the lesson.

M.I.A's Disturbing "Born Free" Video

Yes, it is disturbing. Very much so. SO much so that it was pulled from YouTube. (You can see it on Vimeo.) But, like the Wikileaks video, it's the kind of disturbing that is worthwhile. The kind that is necessary. If you are an adult and willing to deal with shocking content, I'd recommend you see it. You aren't going to like it, but you'll have appreciated seeing it.

Pretty much anybody with a clue (and, who, especially, knows anything about the UK's cultural idiosyncrasies of prejudice) will know instantly what sort of allegory is going on here. It's about showing how minor prejudices can become major ones, and about how the sort of prejudices that you cavalierly ignore or explain away—because you don't identify with the victims—can be brought to vivid life when they're people that you can identify with.

(If nothing else, I'm never going to see certain episodes of South Park the same way again.)

Goldman's "Big Short"

Emails have been released that show that Goldman, contra their assertions, made a whole bunch of money by shorting in the face of the banking collapse.

From Huffpo:

In a July 25 email that year, Gary Cohn, the firm's chief operating officer, wrote Viniar to update him on the firm's mortgage market activities. The firm lost about $322 million on residential mortgages -- but it made $373 million on its bets against the market, bets that increased in value as the market tanked.

About 25 minutes later, Viniar wrote back, "Tells you what might be happening to people who don't have the big short." The firm made $51 million that day.

"There it is, in their own words: Goldman Sachs taking 'the big short' against the mortgage market," subcommittee chairman Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said in a statement accompanying the release of the internal emails.

"Investment banks such as Goldman Sachs were not simply market-makers, they were self-interested promoters of risky and complicated financial schemes that helped trigger the crisis," Levin said. "They bundled toxic mortgages into complex financial instruments, got the credit rating agencies to label them as AAA securities, and sold them to investors, magnifying and spreading risk throughout the financial system, and all too often betting against the instruments they sold and profiting at the expense of their clients."

Levin's panel points out that in the firm's 2009 annual report, Goldman Sachs stated that the firm "did not generate enormous net revenues by betting against residential related products."

"These e-mails show that, in fact, Goldman made a lot of money by betting against the mortgage market," Levin said.

Whoopsie. Pretty sure that out-and-out falsehood in your annual reports ain't gonna do much for your reputation.

Still interested in seeing where this goes. The real story isn't so much the revelations coming out now. We knew all this stuff, it is simply being (finally) proven beyond doubt. The real story is how the hell Washington handles it, since they're absolutely choked with both GS alumni and people who are beholden to GS alumni. The public knows that this thing is going on, and this situation is pretty easy to understand: "GS helped create a bad investment and then bet against it" is not going to be too tricky for even the most low-info voter to grasp.

They're already angry at the "big banks", and this will crystallize their anger. The only question is who to be angry at: and if the Dems (or the Republicans!) don't work damned hard to distance themselves and be seen to punish the bastards, they'll be punished themselves.

Are the British LibDems...Winning?

Maybe yes, maybe no. The Sun (care of the BBC) has them polling ahead of the other two parties following Nick Clegg's victory in the PM debate. People are tired of both Labour and the Tories, and are taking a fresh look at Clegg's crew. But Britain's first-past-the-post system means that it doesn't necessarily matter: the LibDems would have to crush the other parties to win a majority. They aren't crushing. Yet.

It's starting to feel like it might happen, though. The other parties are so tired, and the whole business is so tawdry, that a lot of Brits can be forgiven for wanting a change or three. Certainly a Labour/LibDem coalition is possible, and that could make a lot of big differences. But it's still early days, of course. Who knows what will happen next week.

(Makes one wonder about America, too. England has a third party, and they're doing pretty well. America's system isn't that much different...)

Nice Response to Ebert

Found a good response to Ebert's latest at Gamasutra.

Thing is, I don't think that it matters all that much. Ebert's writings on this are notorious mostly because they're novel. Most people, if they think about it at all, wouldn't have too much trouble with the idea that games are art. The objections appear to come mostly from those who are defending other forms from being "sullied" by games. Since most people under the age of 30 don't see games as "sullying" anything, I doubt that that perspective will endure.

It's a question of time. Nothing more.

Ebert: Still Disappointing

What's disappointing about Ebert's latest whinge about people daring to define computer and video games as "art" isn't so much that he tortures the definition of "art". (Though he does)

No, it's that he tortures the definition of at least two genuinely creative works in doing so: Flower and Braid.  For Flower, he just moans about how he doesn't know anything about the game, and therefore it cannot be "art". But for Braid, well...

Her next example is a game named "Braid" (above). This is a game "that explores our own relationship with our past...you encounter enemies and collect puzzle pieces, but there's one key difference...you can't die." You can go back in time and correct your mistakes. In chess, this is known as taking back a move, and negates the whole discipline of the game. Nor am I persuaded that I can learn about my own past by taking back my mistakes in a video game. She also admires a story told between the games levels, which exhibits prose on the level of a wordy fortune cookie.

Yes, in Chess, that would be "taking back a move". Braid isn't Chess. The two aren't even really comparable. Various forms of time manipulation are the entire point of the experience; they ARE the "discipline of the game".  There is far more to Braid than "taking back a move", and it takes only a cursory examination of the game to reveal the sort of life experiences, emotions, and frustrations that the creator is drawing allegories to.

Ebert isn't even just ignorant here, though: he's being willfully ignorant. He's not only utterly dismissive in a situation where it isn't warranted, but he's clearly not interested in even paying attention to the counter-argument. He talks about how he enjoys the advantage of "response after consideration", but betrays not the slightest moment of consideration in the first place.  Anybody who had ever even heard of the Sims, for example, wouldn't claim that all games are winnable; yet Ebert does it over, and over, and over again, since victory conditions apparently (somehow) deny a game the status of "art".

(No, he never explained that one, either.)

It's not surprising. He's practically built his entire critical reputation on this fight these days. For reasons which baffle me, he has spent more time, energy, and devotion on tearing down games than he has building up film. One wonders why he is so devoted to it, but whatever the reason, he simply cannot be convinced otherwise at this point. He simply has too much at stake, and never did have the temperament to suffer a demeaning climbdown on the subject. Nobody who was trying to engage the subject fairly would make the sorts of rash dismissals that he does on a regular basis. He doesn't appear to want to engage it fairly, because it allows for the possibility that he may be wrong.

In any case, here's the TED talk he was responding to:



I disagree with this in one key respect: I do think that Chess is a work of art. Otherwise, it's excellent stuff. I can see why Ebert was compelled to respond. I'm just disappointed that he made such a hash of it.

Edit: Just as an added point: Ebert really, really mixes up the question of whether something is GOOD art with the question of whether it is art AT ALL. By any logically consistent definition, even bad art is art; bad art contains within it the possibility that it could have been good. 

It is also unfortunate that Ebert seems unwilling to fairly engage the question of interactivity and involvement. Winning conditions do not determine games. As I noted above, many of the most popular games (The Sims, Spore, and the multitudes of "massive multiplayer" games) have no victory conditions at all. They cannot be won. If that means they are not "games" as Ebert understands them, then that shows how limited his conceptions are, not ours.

What defines these games is, instead, direct engagement. You cannot separate that out: that would be like taking the gutters out of a comic, or editing from a filmmaker. It is what defines the form. It's what makes games like Flower and Braid unique. It's also what makes Chess unique: a Chess set is inert until somebody sits down to engage it. You cannot sit outside of the experience: you must become a part of it. And, as anybody who has played Braid can attest, becoming part of that experience will affect how you perceive yourself and the choices you have made in life. That's the point. That's the art. The "victory conditions" are in its service, not the other way around.

Sachs Problems Ramp Up

Honestly, this is incredible. It looks like the entire GS edifice is starting to crumble:

Accusations that Goldman defrauded customers who bought investments tied to risky subprime mortgages have only just begun to reverberate through the financial world.

The civil lawsuit that the Securities and Exchange Commission filed against Goldman on Friday seemed to confirm many Americans’ worst suspicions about Wall Street: that the game is rigged, the odds stacked in the banks’ favor. It is the first big case — but probably not the last, legal experts said — to delve into a Wall Street firm’s role in the mortgage fiasco.

It is a particularly sensitive time for Wall Street. Washington policy makers are hotly debating a sweeping overhaul of the nation’s financial regulations, and the news could embolden those seeking to rein in the banks. President Obama on Saturday stepped up pressure for financial reform by accusing Republicans of “cynical and deceptive” attacks on the measure.

The S.E.C.’s action could also hit Wall Street where it really hurts: the wallet. It could prompt dozens of investor claims against Goldman and other Wall Street titans that devised and sold toxic mortgage investments. On Saturday, several European banks that lost money in the deal said they were reviewing the matter. They could try to recoup the money from Goldman.

And it raises new questions about Goldman, the bank at the center of more concentric circles of economic and political power than any other on Wall Street.

Come to think of it, this is somewhat surprising. It had looked like GS and the rest of them were going to get away with all of it. Sure, Matt Taibbi has been shooting holes in GS like an expert marksman, but their influence still dwarfs his.

At least, it did. They are in a fair spot of trouble:

On Friday, Goldman’s stock took a beating, falling 13 percent and wiping out more than $10 billion of the company’s market value. It was a possible sign that investors fear that the S.E.C. complaint will damage Goldman’s reputation and its ability to keep its hands on so many sides of a trade — a practice that is immensely profitable for the firm.
It is unclear whether the S.E.C. can prevail against Goldman. The bank has long maintained that it puts its clients first and, in a letter in its latest annual report, it reiterated that position. Goldman said it never “bet against our clients” in its trades but rather was trying to hedge against other trading positions.

The transaction cited in the S.E.C. complaint cost investors just over $1 billion, relatively small by Wall Street standards.

Still, Wall Street analysts said Goldman and other banks, having navigated the financial crisis, might now face a new kind of risk: angry investors. Most major Wall Street banks also created collateralized debt obligations, which are at the heart of the Goldman case. C.D.O.’s, which are essentially bundles of securities backed by mortgages or other debt securities, turned out to be among the most toxic investments ever devised.

“Any investor who bought these C.D.O.’s and lost a significant amount of money is probably looking at their investment and wanting to know: what were the details behind the sale?” said William Tanona, an analyst at Collins Stewart. “Will they contact the S.E.C. and say, ‘Here’s the transaction we participated in, and we’d love to know who is on the other side of it?’ ”

That's it in a nutshell. The SEC's actions may amount to nothing. They will probably amount to nothing. It doesn't matter. This will open the floodgates, and everybody who even suspects that they were taken advantage of will be baying for GS's blood: both in America, and around the world.
The sweetest piece of this whole thing? They're being treated like gangsters:

The S.E.C. complaint named just one Goldman employee: Fabrice Tourre, a vice president in the bank’s mortgage operation who worked on the questionable transaction.

But securities lawyers say Mr. Tourre appears to be a small fish. Federal investigators may try to gain his cooperation and extend their investigation to other Goldman employees. On Friday, Mr. Tourre’s lawyer did not provide a comment on the complaint.

A big question is how far up this might go. The S.E.C. said the deal in its complaint had been approved by a panel at Goldman, the Mortgage Capital Committee.

“It’s typical that they’d start with someone lower down on the chain and try to exert pressure on that person,” said Bradley D. Simon of Simon & Partners, a white-collar defense lawyer in New York. “Is it really conceivable that no one else was involved in this?"

This is what you do to drug dealers. You hit a small fish and roll your way up by getting them to cooperate. That they're using the same technique on GS speaks volumes of exactly how trustworthy, how honest, how law-abiding they think that GS isn't.
But all of this raises a question: how did the SEC even get the go-ahead to do this in the first place? It's inconceivable that they made this decision in a vacuum. GS alumni and allies are in every branch of the Obama administration. The SEC head had to know that; he had to know that this would need the go-ahead from the administration. He must have got it. But, in a million years, I never would have thought he would have got it.

First bit of good news in a while. First time in ages that I've actually been optimistic about something. It may pass, but it's a nice change, isn't it?

Sachs Up on Fraud Charges

Not sure if anything will come of this, but it's apparently playing merry hell with their stock price:

The Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday charged Goldman Sachs & Co. (GS 160.70, -23.57, -12.79%) and one of its vice presidents for defrauding investors by misstating and omitting key facts about a financial product related to subprime mortgages. The SEC alleges that Goldman Sachs structured and marketed a collateralized debt obligation that hinged on the performance of subprime residential mortgage-backed securities. However, it failed to disclose the role that a major hedge fund, Paulson & Co., played in the portfolio selection process as well as the fact that the hedge fund had taken a short position against the CDO. "Goldman wrongly permitted a client that was betting against the mortgage market to heavily influence which mortgage securities to include in an investment portfolio, while telling other investors that the securities were selected by an independent, objective third party," said Robert Khuzami, director of the division of enforcement, in a statement.

 So they let a short-seller dictate what they put in a CDO, so as to cash in when the thing tanked.

And they wonder why people now think of Goldman Sachs as a particularly gooey type of pond scum.

The Polish Tragedy

You don't need me to tell you what happened. I'm sure, by now, that you know that Poland has lost much of its leadership in a plane crash. Not all; the Prime Minister and many others are still fine. But the President is gone, among many others.

I'm concerned, however, over whether the tragedy will be compounded by regional instability. All signs point to the crash being nothing but an unfortunate accident. But Russia is already suspected of foul deeds by its neighbours, and the President of Poland was a notable pro-Western figure in the country.  Russia has, by all accounts, been careful and respectful. But already one Polish MP is blaming Russia for the crash. The man is a notorious crank, but I suspect there will be others.