Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
This is why I read the Guardian... Superb article - Edward Snowden meets Arundhati & John Cusack
Edward Snowden meets Arundhati Roy and John Cusack: ‘He was small and lithe, like a house cat’Arundhati Roy
Saturday 28 November 2015 06.00 EST
The Moscow Un-Summit wasn’t a formal interview. Nor was it a cloak-and-dagger underground rendezvous. The upshot is that John Cusack, Daniel Ellsberg (who leaked the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam war) and I didn’t get the cautious, diplomatic, regulation Edward Snowden. The downshot (that isn’t a word, I know) is that the jokes, the humour and repartee that took place in Room 1001 cannot be reproduced. The Un-Summit cannot be written about in the detail that it deserves. Yet it definitely cannot not be written about. Because it did happen. And because the world is a millipede that inches forward on millions of real conversations. And this, certainly, was a real one.
What mattered, perhaps even more than what was said, was the spirit in the room. There was Edward Snowden who, after 9/11, was in his own words “straight up singing highly of Bush” and signing up for the Iraq war. And there were those of us who, after 9/11, had been straight up doing exactly the opposite. It was a little late for this conversation, of course. Iraq has been all but destroyed. And now the map of what is so condescendingly called the “Middle East” is being brutally redrawn (yet again). But still, there we were, all of us, talking to each other in a bizarre hotel in Russia. Bizarre it certainly was.
The opulent lobby of the Moscow Ritz-Carlton was teeming with drunk millionaires, high on new money, and gorgeous, high-stepping young women, half peasant, half supermodel, draped on the arms of toady men – gazelles on their way to fame and fortune, paying their dues to the satyrs who would get them there. In the corridors, you passed serious fistfights, loud singing and quiet, liveried waiters wheeling trolleys with towers of food and silverware in and out of rooms. In Room 1001 we were so close to the Kremlin that if you put your hand out of the window, you could almost touch it. It was snowing outside. We were deep into the Russian winter – never credited enough for its part in the second world war. Edward Snowden was much smaller than I thought he’d be. Small, lithe, neat, like a house cat. He greeted Dan ecstatically and us warmly. “I know why you’re here,” he said to me, smiling. “Why?” “To radicalise me.” I laughed.
What mattered, perhaps even more than what was said, was the spirit in the room. There was Edward Snowden who, after 9/11, was in his own words “straight up singing highly of Bush” and signing up for the Iraq war. And there were those of us who, after 9/11, had been straight up doing exactly the opposite. It was a little late for this conversation, of course. Iraq has been all but destroyed. And now the map of what is so condescendingly called the “Middle East” is being brutally redrawn (yet again). But still, there we were, all of us, talking to each other in a bizarre hotel in Russia. Bizarre it certainly was.
The opulent lobby of the Moscow Ritz-Carlton was teeming with drunk millionaires, high on new money, and gorgeous, high-stepping young women, half peasant, half supermodel, draped on the arms of toady men – gazelles on their way to fame and fortune, paying their dues to the satyrs who would get them there. In the corridors, you passed serious fistfights, loud singing and quiet, liveried waiters wheeling trolleys with towers of food and silverware in and out of rooms. In Room 1001 we were so close to the Kremlin that if you put your hand out of the window, you could almost touch it. It was snowing outside. We were deep into the Russian winter – never credited enough for its part in the second world war. Edward Snowden was much smaller than I thought he’d be. Small, lithe, neat, like a house cat. He greeted Dan ecstatically and us warmly. “I know why you’re here,” he said to me, smiling. “Why?” “To radicalise me.” I laughed.
This is an example of why persons walk the walk, and what can only be imaged as the price. John Cusack is credited for the accompanying pictures. But, more to the article, anyone who has pondered what the U.S. role in a widening control of events will be drawn to what expressed by Roy. I couldn't reproduce pix here. Read the article, please.
Oddly, when I think back on the meeting in the Moscow Ritz-Carlton, the memory that flashes up first in my mind is an image of Daniel Ellsberg. Dan, after all those hours of talking, lying back on the bed, Christlike, with his arms flung open, weeping for what the United States has turned into – a country whose “best people” must either go to prison or into exile. I was moved by his tears but troubled, too – because they were the tears of a man who has seen the machine up close. A man who was once on a first-name basis with the people who controlled it and who coldly contemplated the idea of annihilating life on Earth. A man who risked everything to blow the whistle on them. Dan knows all the arguments, For as well as Against. He often uses the word imperialism to describe US history and foreign policy. He knows now, 40 years after he made the Pentagon Papers public, that even though those particular individuals have gone, the machine keeps on turning.
The Guardian's Full article here: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/nov/28/conversation-edward-snowden-arundhati-roy-john-cusack-interview
13 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
"Is Snowden the Internet Jesus, or merely the son of God?" circle-jerk profile in nearly three whole weeks 
I wish the hero cultists and acolytes took a 10-minute break from the altar of worship to ask why their Internet Jesus went dark on Twitter for 12 days after the Paris attacks, and magically re-appears as if nothing happened with nary a mention of the attacks...
Of course my list of most pressing questions about the Snowden Operation still have yet to be challenged by even the most fervent true believers here... Maybe for christmas some brave DUer will use their brains and give them another glance...
I wish the hero cultists and acolytes took a 10-minute break from the altar of worship to ask why their Internet Jesus went dark on Twitter for 12 days after the Paris attacks, and magically re-appears as if nothing happened with nary a mention of the attacks...
Of course my list of most pressing questions about the Snowden Operation still have yet to be challenged by even the most fervent true believers here... Maybe for christmas some brave DUer will use their brains and give them another glance...
You didn't bother to read.
As far as the Internet Jesus who went dark for 12 days mysteriously... Here's something you can trade for a Penguins helmet... 
“Because that son-of-a-bitch—First of all, I would expect—I know him well—I am sure he has some more information---I would bet that he has more information that he’s saving for the trial. Examples of American war crimes that triggered him into it…It’s the way he’d operate…. Because he is a despicable bastard.” (Oval Office tape, July 27, 1971)
SOURCE: http://www.alternet.org/world/top-10-most-inhuman-henry-kissinger-quotes
Gets weird, pretty darn quick, how fast someone's career gets ruined for mentioning this all.
The Dismissal of Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker - A special report by Cong. Morris K. Udall
Something super-patriotic to consider about Team Blue* when wondering why White Domestic Terrorism NEVER gets mentioned by Corporate McPravda and seldom read by those who still read...
[font size="4"]THE DISMISSAL OF MAJ. GEN. EDWIN A. WALKER[/font size]
A Special Report by
Congressman Morris K. Udall
(says "c. 1961" on original, but likely is 1962 based on "last January" in text below)
So many of you have written me regarding the dismissal of Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker that I have decided to write this report as a partial answer to your questions.
As you know, Gen. Walker was commander of the 24th Infantry Division in West Germany last April, when charges were made that his troop education and indoctrination program was following the pattern of the right-wing John Birch Society. He subsequently was relieved of his command following an Army investigation. Since then charges have been made that Gen. Walker was disciplined because he was a zealous anti-Communist.
Considerable light now has been shed on this case. During the week of September 3-9 Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee and answered the questions of Senator Strom Thurmond and other critics of the Army action. From his testimony and the subsequent release of the 973-page transcript of the Army's hearings on the case it now becomes clear that Gen. Walker was dismissed, not because he was a zealous anti-Communist, but because he engaged in political activity.
Two facts stand out: first that Gen. Walker advised his troops and their families to consult the so-called "A.C.A. Index" before voting in congressional elections last fall, and second, that Gen. Walker pleaded the military equivalent of the Fifth Amendment (Article 31 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice) when questioned about this. This article, like the Fifth Amendment, may be invoked when one believes his own testimony might "tend to incriminate" him.
For your information, the "A.C.A. Index" is a voting guide published by one particular faction on the American political scene. It can lay no more claim to infallibility or correctness than the "A.D.A. Index", published by the opposite extreme of the political spectrum. For Gen. Walker to urge his troops and their families to consult this guide before voting was to engage in overt political activity in clear violation of the spirit of the Hatch Act, which prohibits government personnel from participating in politics other than voting.
There were other points brought out, as well. For example, the testimony revealed that Gen. Walker is a member of the John Birch Society, an organization whose leader says former President Eisenhower, John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles and other high officials of our government have been Communist dupes. Also, it was revealed that Gen. Walker made public statements which were derogatory of other present and former officials of our government. Such statements, of course, are wholly out of keeping for a military officer.
Three days before he left office last January former President Eisenhower said in a nation-wide television address, "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." I believe Mr. Eisenhower's warning is pertinent to this situation. In the course of our history we have always maintained civilian control of our government by elected officials responsible to the electorate. I firmly believe that this must continue.
Everyone will agree, I think, on two propositions: 1) that military leaders have a right and duty to indoctrinate their troops in broad, basic principles of American history and government so they will know why they are asked to serve their country and fight for it if necessary, and 2) that military leaders have absolutely no business taking any part in political campaigns or seeking to influence their troops in matters which are partisan or political. One need only look at some of the South American and Asian nations to see that real democracy and liberty are missing when military leaders participate in elections or political decisions.
A non-political military establishment is one of the most vital, indispensable ingredients of the kind of democracy which distinguishes the United States, Britain and other nations of the free world.
This whole thing can be seen in true focus, I believe, if we suppose for a moment that the situation had been reversed. Imagine that Gen. Walker had called his troops together to "indoctrinate" them on Americanism. Suppose he had advised them that our country was in great danger of losing the cold war to the Communists, and that we could strengthen our nation for the future only if we had more federal aid to education, more urban renewal to eliminate crime and poverty in the cities, larger aid for undeveloped countries, etc. These are views which have been expressed by President Kennedy, ex-President Eisenhower and other Americans whose sincerity and patriotism cannot be questioned. Had this been the case, I think you would have joined me in expressing outrage at such military interference in these political questions. Yet, if what Gen. Walker did is right, another commander holding the views I have mentioned could properly "indoctrinate" his troops along those lines. On the basis of the facts presented I think there can be no doubt that the reprimand given Gen. Walker was warrented (sic).
SOURCE: http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/udall/special/walker.html
If the connections from today's racist murderous mindset string gets tugged, it pulls all the way back to Gen. Walker, who stood with opponents of Social-Security,Civil Rights, Integration, Equality, Democracy, Justice for All. He and the right wingers then and today stood afraid of "Liberals" losing America to the commies and the nation to the enemies of the "White Race."
*Team Blue was the U.S. side in war games and planning for the big one with Team Red, the commies -- code names and inside information still go over big with lots of the John Birch Society membership and their supporters.
You know the players, MrMickeysMom.