Follow Us 
Insider
-
The gap between what we see & reality has never been wider
-
Where the markets are most likely headed from here
Comments
New Forum Topics
JamesTerry: 2 hours 38 min ago
JamesTerry: 3 days 8 hours ago
Mohave: 3 days 16 hours ago
nedyne: 5 days 19 hours ago
FreeNL: 5 days 23 hours ago
Judd: 6 days 18 hours ago
sand_puppy: 6 days 22 hours ago
JamesTerry: 1 week 1 day ago
ltlredwagon: 1 week 1 day ago
Mohave: 1 week 1 day ago
Newest groups
-
Members to support one another in investing endeavors
-
Preparing those people on Ise Lodge (Kettering) Northants, interested in the future post fossil fuel.
-
A meeting place for all who are interested in building or sharing a resilient lifestyle up here in the North.
-
A group to form alliances for survival
-
Engaging and Preparing in Metro-West Boston
Hi xraymike,
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.
I do note that duing the interview, Porter does not repeat the same error which appears in the written article ("not a single quote from Arbabsiar shows that he agreed to assassinating the ambassador"). In the video interview Porter admits that Arbabsiar agreed to assassinate "the ambassador." This discrepancy in Porter's comments suggests to me that Porter knew this information all along, making the omission in the written article all the more indicative of either (a) very careless writing, or (b) an attempt to mislead.
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.
(Question: First of all, what is Porter's point here? Is Porter suggesting that Arbabsiar meant some other ambassador? Like maybe he really wanted the Swedish Ambassador killed? I don't see how that would make things any better for Arbabsiar.)
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."
Anyway, to get back to the point, on July 17 we have a second meeting which is a virtual treasure trove of highly incriminating statements, including where Arbabsiar says that it's OK if the whole restaurant is blown up.
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.
Porter's overall thrust seems to be to imply that the complaint gives flimsy reasons supporting the issuance of criminal charges, and in order to make his case he focuses intently on some evidence and ignores other evidence. I don't like this type of shifty behavior in my reporters.
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."
But cutting in favor of (a) is the fact that what the complaint says about specific meetings is completely irrelevant, because it betrays a complete ignorance by Porter of the way the justice system works. The purpose of a criminal complaint application is to establish probable cause that a person is guilty of a specific crime - just enough to begin the trial process.
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.
So, in toto, we have a reporter who (A) misleads his audience about what kind and amount of evidence you would expect to find inside a criminal complaint. By characterizing the evidence within the complaint as "very extensive" (it's not, and isn't meant to be) and then saying that the lack of certain information is "suspicious," he implies that it ought to be there. Very unethical or very incompetent.
(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.