Sorry about the delay. Yes, indeed Porter does go into some more detail here. Of course, the interview is not really responsive to any of the points I made above, in reference to the written story. It is largely a retelling of the written story.
Of course it does. The fact that there are 2 plus weeks of missing information on meetings that took place between the Iranian American and the DEA agent suggests that the assassination plot was hatched by the FBI in order to entrap Arbabsiar for political propaganda against Iran. This is a possible scenario that Porter puts forth and it makes a lot of sense in regards to America's foreign policy of controlling resources in the Middle East. Were the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq hidden in the hairpin of an old woman? Saddam asked something to that effect before we orchestrated our 'shock and awe' campaign in his country.
Are you watching the same video as me? What planet are you on? He emphatically says the same thing that he did in the article: Not a single quote from Arbabsiar in which he clearly states he intends to have the ambassador of Saudi Arabia assassinated. Check point 2:53 of the video I posted.
I told you what his point was in post #23 :
"His point is that the FBI target was likely enticed and cajoled into this fabricated "terrorist plot". He was interested in money from a possible drug deal and not an assassination. He appears to be another hapless individual coaxed and entrapped into becoming another FBI-made terrorist."
Now, immediately after devoting several sentences to the fact that on Thursday all Arbabsiar said that that he wanted "the ambassador" killed, Porter completely ignores the plethora of specific and incriminating quotes From the Sunday meeting. He doesn't mention them at all. He only sees fit to mention that "well, it was "suspicious" that he agreed to have a whole restaurant bombed."
Again, the plot was, in all likelihood, hatched by the FBI in order to ensnare Arbabsiar. If there is information showing that the Iranian American developed this plot and intended on carrying it out as his primary mission, then Id like to see it so that I can have my suspicions quelled. Until such time, Porter's Theory is much more plausible.
That's not shitty reporting, that's theorizing on a suspicious state case which could be used as part of a larger pretext for another war in the Middle East. As was stated in the article in post #26
"I should point out here that speculation is part of any serious analysis of a case like this. The prosecution comes up with a "theory of the case" and defense attorneys try to find any problems in the prosecution's theory and, if feasible, offer an alternative theory of the case in hopes of establishing reasonable doubt about their client's guilt. Outside reporters and researchers don't have the responsibility of prosecutors or defense attorneys to provide zealous advocacy for guilt or innocence. It doesn't mean that someone is pushing a "conspiracy theory" if they are offering plausible alternative theories of the case. There's a point in the video above at about 10.20 where the interviewer Paul Jay asks Gareth Porter about another possible theory of the case, which Gareth explains is not likely in the current case.
In a case like this one where the public story is "so difficult to believe" as Gareth says in that interview, it's especially necessary to test alternative theories as a framework for what we know in the public record. It seems to me that the best alternative version of Arababsiar's case is something like the one that Gareth suggests: Arbabsiar had a contact in Iran with whom he thought he could do a drug deal of some kind. When he wound up contacting a DEA informant who posed as part of Los Zetas drug cartel, the DEA worked with the FBI and the CIA to draw him into this unlikely plot to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the US in Washington in a terrorist attack that would have involved multiple deaths."
Once you have submitted enough evidence to hit the basic elements of the crime, it is not good lawyering to offer up more free information. We can expect that the Justice Department prosecutors (if they graduated from a law school) will include only enough information in the criminal complaint to establish the elements of the crimes charges, and no more. Once you have offered enough information, you stop. As did the Justice Department prosecutors here.
If you are a prosecuting attorney, you want to particularly avoid giving many quotes from many different meetings in a way that shows how the investigation developed. In fact, you may choose to present information in a way that does not reveal where the bulk of the evidence in fact lies. If Porter had any expertise, even as a courthouse beat reporter in a small town covering misdemeanors, he would probably be aware of this.
I'm sure white-haired investigative journalist Gareth Porter is well aware of how the judicial system works.
(B) Porter makes false statements in at least the written article, and in the video interview plays "hide the ball" with the evidence by focusing on some and skimming over other evidence. Not the kind of professional, impartial, dedicated reporter that I want on my side.
As I explained, Porter says the same thing in both the article and the video interviews, and the reasons and objectives of Porter's investigative piece on such a case mired in mystery have also been explained to you. Its called theorizing and was stated as such in the Porter interviews. Read my previous comments just above.
This all has little to do with my concerns about Porter's reporting techniques.
That is not what Porter said in the article (as you will see if you read the article, which I cordially invite you to do). That line appears nowhere, and neither does any reference to Arbabsiar's agreement to kill "the ambassador" during the July 14th meeting, which Porter talks about in the interview.
In fact what Porter wrote was, "[N]ot a single quote from Arbabsiar shows that he agreed to assassinating the ambassador, much less proposed it..." Whereas in fact that is exactly, precisely, what Arbabsiar agreed to during the July 14th interview. He specifically said that he would like to kill "the ambassador."
I couldn't agree more. It is up to the reporters to test alternate theories. However, testing a theory is quite different from selectively reporting facts, which is rather the opposite of "testing" the theory.
Unfortunately, after reading Porter's article, I am unable to maintain the same degree of credulity. As I said, Porter first misleads his listeners by characterizing the evidence within the criminal complaint as "very extensive" (when it's not, and is not meant to be) and then by claiming that the lack of certain information is "suspicious" he implies that more complete information ought to be in that document. Very unethical or very incompetent.
Hm. Clearly we are dealing with a fundamental disagreement about basic fact, which signals to me that our conversation has reached an end. If two people look out of the same window - one claims it is raining while the other claims it is sunny - no amount of conversation will reconcile their conflicting opinions, since their opinions are proceeding from different perceptions of fact.
I will give you this: based on your apparent perception of basic facts, your reasoning is completely logical, and I have no argument with it. If I perceived the facts the same as you do, then I would agree wholeheartedly with your views.
It was a pleasure.
Place to find the latest trends and tutorials about how to make it in the startup world.
Emily's interests and research
For people in and around Austin, TX who are interested in working together to increase resiliency for ourselves and our communities
Group for people looking to connect in Alberta Canada