In India, officials were held accountable by the public following the recent terrorist rampage, the press demanded an explanation for their failure in preventing the attacks and for the tardy response after they began. Heads have rolled; for example the individual in charge of security resigned within days. This pattern plays out in other countries as well following attacks. But not here. There was no great hue and cry starting 9/12/01 for an explanation from General Myers for the lack of air defenses, nor from Mueller over at the FBI; they claimed to be as surprised as everyone else. That won't fly in India.

And it shouldn't here. But it did. And still does - not one person in a position of authority on 9/11 has ever been so much as demoted, rather a number of have been promoted. But you know all that. Most people don't know all that. Most still haven't stopped to even think of it.

That is why this lawsuit, despite some problems I have with the full text, is important; it calls to attention the actions of those charged to protect us on that day and demands in a court of law explanation and accountability. It goes one step further; it aims to prove criminal conduct. But even if it gets tossed by the Judge before discovery can begin, it is still valuable because it is another voice out there, just when you thought none were left with the energy to make the attempt, a voice demanding answers and accountability, reminding us that something very odd happened that day - a complete intelligence and defense systems failure that defies explanation, other than everyone was so surprised and confused they managed to bungle every move to protect us and their own defense center...the Pentagon.

Imagine how the people in India would react if they got the same explanation. Mass demonstrations, strikes, shut downs, sit ins at government buildings.

So let's be happy at least that we have this lawsuit popping up seven years later. I hope it isn't dismissed, despite the putting the cart before the horse case for conspiracy it presents in the text, stating there was a conspiracy and then proving it with facts and assertions. If this one (I recall at least one earlier lawsuit - by a WTC widow) gets going, then the discovery phase would prove very interesting.

But I doubt it will be the one to take us down that rabbit hole. If it had stuck to the core argument, which is, to summarize, defendant's "failures" to exercise their duties on that day caused plaintiff's injuries, then it might have stood a chance of passing the first hurdle, leading to the discovery phase. A factual account of the Pentagon timeline and lack of response by Rumsfeld, Cheney and Myers is the heart of the thing. Maybe I'm wrong and it will move forward anyway, or because of that. This is a transition period we're in so surprising things can happen.

At the very least, we do need to ask questions of these people and hold them to account. Especially now, as they attempt to rewrite history with the Bush legacy push.

 
I don't know if whoever posted this got the link from my post yesterday alerting people to it. Appreciate it if you did, because I couldn't figure a way to grab the video from the NY Times website. Timely upload in any case. Very important to check it out, because you see and HEAR what happened after the footage goes black in the video that was taken from the other side of the aisle.

Yes, some of you may have seen this "other angle" before, but probably that was in the context of mainstream news coverage, where voice over narrations obscure the sound of the blows landing and al-Zaidi's cries, and they don't use all of the footage - at least on the station I watched.

What is clear in this footage is that punishment was being meted out by Iraqi security with at least one American in the mix, and it occurred in the presence of all the people in that room.

My take: you see security motioning the direction they want to take him out, and at the same time motioning for the cameras to be shut off. You hear an American voice in the mix taking charge, or helping out; it's not clear. You hear a fist landing a solid blow, like in a bar fight. You see an Iraqi, it appears to be, bending over in the foreground and coming up quick as he delivers a punch to the journalist's stomach. You hear others in the room reacting to the violence as they realize what is taking place. All this BEFORE he is removed from the room.

And in the NY Times article accompanying the footage:

"Mr. Zaidi was subdued by a fellow journalist and then beaten by members of the prime minister’s security detail, who hauled him out of the room in his white socks. Mr. Zaidi’s cries could be heard from a nearby room as the news conference continued."

If his cries could be heard from a nearby room, presumably by those present in the press room (and there were a LOT of press there - journalists and cameramen, this was a major photo-op), then it is possible Bush heard the cries, too. And did nothing.

If he didn't hear anything, which is just as possible (to be fair, more probable), then others who did hear it, said nothing, as thug's justice was being meted out next door. Or did anyone speak up? Make a comment? (Is there more video and audio of the event to unearth that can help us on that point?)

When a man is down, when a man is in custody, you don't beat him, plain and simple. You can debate al-Zaidi's action - was it a crime or a misdemeanor? Assault or protest? But what security did to him was a crime absolutely, similar to a case of police brutality.

So that press room is a crime scene in more ways than one.

Here is the link to the LA Times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/world/mi...

The NY Times web site has a video of the shoe throwing from more than one angle. Go to this link

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/world/mi...

and scroll half way down the page - passed the standard footage of the incident to a second video. Play THAT! It is from the opposite side of the aisle in the press room and captures some of what happens to Muntader al-Zaidi that has not been shown elsewhere (to my knowledged).

The first video goes black as people swarm Mr. Zaidi. This one keeps rolling. It shows security dragging him up and away; you hear him shouting and crying out in pain. It appears he is being punched from underneath as they lift him. In the background you can see Bush and Maliki at the podium. This second camera confirms what is mentioned in the accompanying article, that security punched Zaidi after he had been subdued.

"Mr. Zaidi was subdued by a fellow journalist and then beaten by members of the prime minister’s security detail, who hauled him out of the room in his white socks. Mr. Zaidi’s cries could be heard from a nearby room as the news conference continued."

If his cries could be heard from a nearby room, presumably by those present in the press room, then it is probable Bush heard them, too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/world/mi...

(If anyone can grab this video, please post it.)

Came up with the name independently. Never heard, nor seen a Wikipedia listing either. And did not have a staff meeting devoted to ripping off anybody else's nomdeplumage before uploading. A coincidence. Due to a natural tendency to look at a man in a barrel and think BARREL MAN! It's hotwired in our DNA, so relax. The guy is a friend and regular peace vigiler on Friday nights who showed up one night a month or so back wearing that getup and so was dubbed Barrel Man.

But he does have an A.K.A.: Hard Times Jim

Use that if you like.

And it was cold last Friday night. Chillin' for peace and Obama, he was.

Barrel Man first appeared during the bailout. He's back, and now he's happy.

Where's the pix?

(I read the FAQ about posting images and it says to post in any format, without explaining how you upload it to DU. And there is no attachment button on this posting page. So I shall refer you to the web site with Barrel Man's photo, and maybe someone more DU image-posting savvy will be able to grab it and post it here, in this thread, or create your own. And then let me know how you did it. Thanks!)

IMHO, you will want to see this photo.

www.neighborsforpeaceandjustice.com

If Raw Story has it right, then this is a replay of the forged docs re Niger uranium purchases by Saddam. They just keep doing it, and will until prosecuted. Also true to form is the latest news about the admin reneging on its pledge of transparency re the recipients of bailout funds. So, after the election, another bit of true-form we have to look forward to will be the discovery that the treasury was CLEANED OUT during the very period we are living in, bailout funds transferred to the winners (Morgan, BofA, etc...), who didn't need it to stay solvent but did need it to purchase the competition, thereby solidifying their position and shore up the whacked game for a few quarters longer. And then . . . ?

Entitlement programs anyone?

 
When was this videotaped?
Where was it videotaped?
Who are the soldiers? (What country's troops, brigade, etc...?)
If this is an old video, then what was the outcome of it as an expose?
Why is this being pegged now to a "Republican" as narrator?
What is the history behind this video landing on DU via YouTube?
How are we to respond? Really, beyond this thread. Other than trade opinions without backing any of them up with facts.
For instance, will the person who said this is an old video, please tell us where and when it was first seen?
In other words, some things posted on this site demand more background information than the simple shock value of the video itself. Which is bad enough. This is a very upsetting tape - represents everything wrong with the past six years of occupation. And we got single line commentary in a DU thread - here tonight, gone tomorrow morning?
Come on, let's get some real information flowing here.