Cryptome on al-Jazeera

[Ed Jewett]

2 March 2010
A3 responds:
I am an arab citizen from Lebanon and head a translation business in France. I FULLY approve your posting a translated report about al jazeera's connections to arab and foreign secret services including the Mossad. It requires courage to post such a piece of information. After reading the comment below, it seems that some people are in the business of smearing your site's credibility. Well ! apart from a doubtful historical perspective, the denial posting below carries nothing new to provide solid proof how could this sheer high number of assassinations and arrests happen otherwise than mere coincidence ? (it is non sense to dismiss such a long list of names).
To show you how UNPROFESSIONAL al jazeera is, just recall that this channel chose NOT to air Saddam's public apperance on the same day that Baghdad fell (April 9th, 2003) in an attempt to demoralize further the arab masses. The footage which was caught by this same al jazeera's crew was aired only two months later once it become irrelevant. This single event could have made history when it was rumored that the Iraki leader was killed through an initial decapitation strike.
In conclusion, what a better tool for infiltration than arab speaking security agents posing as journalists? Add to this fact double standards which are very common among Gulf Arabs and you have a wonderful recipe for a media disaster.
27 February 2010
A2 responds:
I just read your post "Report on Al-Jazirah TV's Suspected Role in Killing, Arrest of Activists"(translated from www.Elaph.com) and as Arab I was very disappointed in to see this baseless propaganda coming from a well known website that panders to Saudi government policy be published on your website which prides itself in posting "publication that are prohibited by governments worldwide, in particular material on freedom of expression, privacy, cryptology, dual-use technologies, national security, intelligence, and secret governance -- open, secret and classified documents --".
Al-Jazirah, or more accurately Al-Jazeera, was established in 1996 by a group of Arab journalists (from different Arab countries) who were working for BBC Arabic and after the Saudi funders cut the funding to that department due to some of their critical coverage of the Saudi government. The Qatari government who at the time vowed to end political censorship in media and after abolishing its Ministry of Information, offered to host the de-funct BBC Arabic. The BBC staff accepted on condition that they are not subject to any censorship or interference.
Contrary to what Elpah wrote, the Al-Jazeera experiment quickly became very popular among citizens of different Arab countries because it was the first time Arab activists and citizens alike could voice openly and uncensored, their criticism of Arab governments. Al-Jazeera's refusal to censor critics of various Arab governments has even led some Arab governments to cut electricity off cities during the broadcast of certain programs (Algeria). The Saudi government cut off diplomatic relations with Qatar for over 8 years over Al-Jazeera. Other Arab governments threatened with the same and few withdrew their diplomatic presence in protest. Al-Jazeera was also the first Arab news station to invite Israeli official to be interviewed and present their viewpoints on its programs and to speak directly to the Arab viewer. Some Arab governments tried to use this against the station but it failed. While a number of viewers did initially oppose having Israeli officials on the station, they later on understood the core values of the stations and its motto which is: the opinion and the other opinion
The key point here is that Al-Jazeera continues to enjoy a wide support and appreciation among Arab citizens and Elpha's article, like what a number of Arab governments do, is an attempt to deny that and to demonize a news station that means a lot to millions of people in the Middle East.
Elpah's article is propaganda and an attempt to smear a news station. You should be posting secret government documents on their attempt to shutdown the station not propaganda material from the same governments.
__________
26 February 2010

A sends:
Report on Al-Jazirah TV's Suspected Role in Killing, Arrest of Activists
Report by Mahmud al-Awadi: "There Are Questions on Assassinations That Take Place After Interviews Conducted by Al-Jazirah. Al-Rantisi, Al-Mabhuh, Siyam, Shaikh, Binalshibh, and Rigi Appeared on Al-Jazirah"
Ilaf.com
Friday, February 26, 2010 T12:31:29Z
Journal Code: 9469 Language: ENGLISH Record Type: FULLTEXT
Document Type: OSC Translated Text [OSC is the CIA's Open Source Center, formerly the Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS)]
Word Count: 2,269
Many assassinations or arrest of prominent figures happen after interviews, which the Qatari Al-Jazirah Channel conducts with these figures. These incidents have raised many questions. Large Arab circles that are interested in political and media affairs no longer have to believe the Qatari Al-Jazirah Channel's justification that the assassination and arrest of political, security, and military activists around the world happen by sheer coincidence.
Dubai: The assassination of Abdolmalek Rigi, head of the Sunni Jundallah Group, raised questions again within circles that are interested in linking a possible vague role by the Qatari Al-Jazirah satellite Television to the assassination and arrest of political and security activists directly after they finish interviews with the Qatari television.
The Al-Jazirah satellite Channel began its transmission late in 1996 creating at the time a great deal of controversy and media uproar and chaos, which, many times, caused political estrangement between Doha that hosts the satellite channel and several Arab and foreign states, which held the view that the television's coverage was biased and not innocent.
Doha says it does not interfere in the satellite channel's work. However, it was noticed that the Gulf Emirate intervened at serious junctures to direct, dismiss, or re-form the satellite channel's boards of directors. But the most important question remains: Was Al-Jazirah truly involved in very suspicious matters, as a long list of proofs shows?
Large Arab circles that are interested in political and media affairs no longer have to believe the Qatari Al-Jazirah satellite Channel's justification that the assassinations and arrests among political, security, and military activists around the world in general and in the Arab region in particular happened by sheer coincidence. The reason is that logic says a perfect coincidence does not happen in this suspicious way where it is difficult to ignore the connection between an interview conducted by the Qatari satellite channel and the arrest or assassination of those who gave these interviews.
One may be convinced that such incidents can happen by coincidence once or twice. However, when they become a phenomenon, they must be considered carefully to dot the i's and cross the t's regarding the Qatari satellite channel's performance and ambiguous role. This is because many Arab circles view the Qatari channel with extreme doubt that sometimes reaches the point of accusation. To date, the channel has refused to give a convincing justification of the ambiguous incidents that happen to those who it hosts.
Ilaf asked political analyst Salim Jum'ah for his view of the ongoing talk and the charges against the Qatari satellite channel. He said: It is absolutely not possible any longer to separate the arrest or assassination of activists from the fact that they were hosted by the Qatari Al-Jazirah Channel. The reason is that Arab intelligence agencies have information indicating that the Qatari channel presses those who it seeks to interview. When it reaches a deadlock, it resorts to the use of financial incentives to persuade the guests who mostly avoid the media for security reasons. They do not want to appear in the media to avoid being pursued and caught through assassination or arrest. There is a very long list of proofs in this respect.
Jum'ah added: It is very strange that these activists disappear many years without appearing in the media. During this period, they enjoy complete security, and even professional intelligence agencies that pursue them day and night fail to catch them. But, a little interview with the Qatari satellite channel easily leads to their arrest.
As is clear to date, the latest victim of the Qatari satellite channel is leader of the Sunni Jundallah Group Abdolmalek Rigi who was tracked by the Pakistani intelligence agencies even though he hid in Islamabad. He made a short appearance on the Al-Jazirah Channel's "Today's Meeting" Program. Afterward, Pakistan handed him over to Iran, which wanted him dead or alive for his responsibility for bloody attacks on Iranian installations because he rejects the mullahs regime in Tehran. His group's latest attack almost liquidated high-level military commanders of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.
His arrest was an astonishing victory for Tehran, which had been looking for him relentlessly. It attempted to catch him several times, but he always managed to escape from the Iranian intelligence service, which did not give up the hope of arresting him. It is certain that Rigi will be put on mock trial that will soon order his execution.
According to Jum'ah, the Qatari Al-Jazirah Channel's interview with the mastermind of the attacks of 11 September 2001 Khalid Shaikh Mohammed led to his arrest. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed appeared together with his very important aide, Ramzi Binalshibh, on the channel's "Top Secret" Program, which was presented by Egyptian journalist Yusri Fudah. Afterward, Fudah resigned from the Qatari satellite channel for reasons that are unknown to date. With their faces covered, the two men recounted what they termed the road to the invasion of Washington and Manhattan, in a reference to the targeting of the World Trade Center's Twin Towers and the US Defense Department headquarters (the Pentagon).
A few days after the Al-Jazirah Channel broadcast the program, Pakistani intelligence forces surrounded the place where both Shaikh and Binalshibh were hiding in one of the villages of Islamabad. Afterward, they handed the two men over to the United States, which considered them a very precious catch. Later, the United States rewarded Islamabad in many spheres during the rule of former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.
However, following the spread of information indicating that senior leaders of the Al-Qa'ida Organization were very angry and that they held the Qatari satellite channel responsible for the arrest of Shaikh and Binalshibh, the Qatari satellite channel, through mediators, justified the action to the senior leaders of that hard-line fundamentalist organization whose followers are pursued around the world.
The Qatari Al-Jazirah television channel said that the Pakistani intelligence personnel may have followed its correspondent Yusri Fudah during his travel to complete the recording of the program, and that Shaikh and Binalshibh may have been arrested after the intelligence personnel found out that they were in the same place to where Fudah went. The Qatari Al-Jazirah Channel said the airing of the program was an indication that Fudah did meet with Shaikh and Binalshibh at that location, and that is the reason why the place was raided. At the time, Al-Jazirah focused forcefully on its justifications that appeared closer to a public apology.
Political analyst Salim Jum'ah says: After the incidents of Rigi, Shaikh, and Binalshibh, came the assassination of Mahmud al-Mabhuh, a prominent military leader in the Palestinian HAMAS Movement, in a hotel in the Emirate of Dubai in the UAE.
After this assassination, an impression prevailed among Arab parties that there is something suspicious and it cannot be ignored any longer. This is especially true in light of the fact that Al-Mabhuh, whose facial features were known only to the very few people who were very close to him, appeared unexpectedly without a face cover on the Al-Jazirah Satellite Channel. He spoke in length about an operation that he carried out in the 80s of the past century, an operation that shocked Israel when he captured and liquidated two soldiers.
According to sources close to HAMAS, Al-Mabhuh was asked by higher commanders why he appeared without a mask and spoke in detail about the military operation that he carried out. In reply to the question, he said that the Qatari Al-Jazirah Channel's team pressed him hard to appear without a mask. The Qatari satellite channel told Al-Mabhuh before the interview that its viewers may accuse it of fabricating interviews. Therefore, he has to first appear without a mask and then speak in detail to ensure that there will be no accusation that the content of the interview was fabricated too.
The HAMAS sources say that Al-Jazirah seemed as if it was preparing for something other than journalism and ethics of the profession. It seemed that Al-Jazirah sought to show his features to those who were interested in pursuing him, establish his identity, and confirm his admission that he killed Israelis. Then, the Israeli intelligence agencies would have to liquidate him physically.
As political analyst Jum'ah says, the targeting of the former commander in chief of HAMAS, Abd-al-Aziz al-Rantisi, is still recalled when the long series of proofs is mentioned. It is reported that Al-Rantisi trusted the Al-Jazirah team in the Gaza Strip and fixed a date to give them an interview many days after he disappeared from public view after HAMAS elected him as commander in chief to succeed the movement's spiritual father, Ahmad Yasin, who was killed by an Israeli missile in March 2003.
For 25 days, Al-Jazirah kept pressing people close to Al-Rantisi to persuade him to give a lengthy interview in which he would discuss his new responsibilities at the helm of the Palestinian movement. After their insistence, he agreed to give them a preliminary date in his home, which he had not visited since the assassination of Yasin. When he finished the interview with Al-Jazirah, felt an emotion to see his family, and was about to leave the place, Israeli missiles killed him immediately.
Afterward, the movement's leaders who were based abroad asked a lot of questions whether the Qatari Al-Jazirah Channel had anything to do with the assassination of Al-Rantisi. However, HAMAS chose not to exaggerate the story with Al-Jazirah because it wanted Al-Jazirah to be its media forum at later stages.
Political analyst Salim Jum'ah points out that the same story of the targeting of Al-Rantisi after his interview with Al-Jazirah recurred with the interior minister in the deposed HAMAS government, Sa'id Siyam, during the Israeli war on the Gaza Strip last year.
Siyam was good at disguising. He oversaw the endorsement of military plans and ensured internal security in the Gaza Strip in spite of the fierce Israeli shelling at the time. But, as soon as Siyam finished recording an interview with the Al-Jazirah Channel and the television team departed, Israel killed Siyam in a bombardment that did not seem indiscriminate at the time. However, because Israel killed Siyam soon afterward, Al-Jazirah preferred not to air the interview to date, in an effort to avoid more evidences and proofs.
Employees of Al-Jazirah say that the interview with Siyam was ready to be broadcast, but instructions from higher echelons froze the interview. Thus, it was not aired.
The information available to these employees indicates that what happened with Siyam was expected to happen with the prime minister of the deposed government, Isma'il Haniyah, and prominent leading figure Mahmud al-Zahhar who vehemently rejected any interview with the Qatari Al-Jazirah Channel under Israeli bombardment. They made promises many times to give interviews when the war ends. They always said that they were busy following the land battles with Israel and continuously assessing the situation. Nevertheless, this information has not been confirmed by an independent party. In addition, it is not known whether Haniyah and Al-Zahhar knew about the Qatari Al-Jazirah Channel's harbored intention.
According to political analyst Salim Jum'ah, the arrest of Rigi today sounds the alarm bell for all activists across the world telling them to reconsider any decisions they might take to give interviews to the Qatari Al-Jazirah Channel. To date, this channel has not presented any convincing justification of what happens soon after its interviews are aired. Moreover, it recently began to ignore any questions raised in the Arab circles on the recent incidents.
Many obscure activists have been arrested in Arab and foreign states, and the thing that linked all these incidents was a contact with the Al-Jazirah Channel to inform it of some issues. After the contact, the callers were surprised by immediate calls from the television's teams asking them about their places of residence so that they may be able to reach them. However, those who reached them in the end were intelligence agency personnel who pursued and failed to find them in the past. But it became easy to reach them after they made a contact with the Qatari Al-Jazirah Channel.
It is recalled that the Qatari Al-Jazirah satellite Channel began its transmission at the end of October 1996, creating large uproar that was closer to media chaos at the time, as political analyst Jum'ah put it.
Many times, the channel's programs deliberately offended Arab states and governments directly, including ruling regimes in more than one Arab country. Such offences repeatedly caused political estrangement between the state of Qatar in which the channel is based and many Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Tunisia, and Iraq. On the other hand, several Arab writers said that the Al-Jazirah Channel's performance is more like the method of driving a wedge, fomenting sedition, causing chaos, and triggering security disturbances in several Arab countries.
(Description of Source: London Ilaf.com in Arabic -- Saudi-owned, independent Internet daily with pan-Arab, liberal line. URL: http://www.elaph.com/)











Source link: http://cryptome.org/0001/al-jazirah-hits.htm

[David Guyatt]

I sort of assumed this was the case ever since David Frost announced he was moving over to Al Jeezera TV five years ago. I became highly suspicious of Frost over his TV programme on Barings Banks, Nick Leeson. The general thrust that Frost followed in his TV interview was that Leeson was the "lone gunman" in the Barings Bank bust. But the facts simply do not support this.

Thus Frost was promulgating the accepted media view of the time about Leeson, who was not even allowed to arrive in the UK and be arrested here, the domicile and HQ of Barings bank, but was stopped in Germany - when his fight touched down en route to London - and was promptly arrested and then deported back to Singapore for trial and imprisonment.

Not to blat on about this, but Leeson did not operate alone, was specially coached in the techniques he used to defeat the system (such as it was) and, more than that, there is some evidence to suggest Barings was some also involved sort of intelligence operation --- shortly after the collapse, the well known spook "fixer" from Mi5, Sir John Cuckney, was seen entering the building.

[Magda Hassan]

And don't forget this little gem:
http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/...php?t=2393

I'd like to more about the Barings operation. I never followed that one up at the time. Care to say more David?

[David Guyatt]

Unfortunately, not a lot I'm afraid. All my research papers, including the various official reports from the UK and Singapore governments are now in storage. However, I prepared a TV documentary synopsis for the then Commissioning Editor of Channel Four's Dispatches programme, and later met with him to discuss the programme synopsis -- and also had a telephone call from the barrister who was representing the bond holders of Barings who lost every penny. The question I suggested he follow up on was how Leeson, who had been a back office admin type, suddenly got promoted overnight to head trader for the Singapore office. To put this in perspective, the transmission is similar to a hospital nurse overnight becoming the chief surgeon in another hospital's operating theatre. It was an extraordinary leap into the dark and, more than anything, directly pointed to some very serious involvement at the executive board level in this entire affair.

What I can also remember is that the investigators for the Bank of England investigation into the affair, never once set foot in Barings bank offices, and never once eyed a document that the executives of Barings didn't firstly provide (and obviously scrutinize).

In the end, Barings was sold for the sum of £1.00 to the Dutch bank, ING (safe hands), who took ownership of all the bank's documents and who would not allow them to be seen ( I tried ). Thirty odd Barings executives were then fired, but not before paying millions of pounds in year end bonuses in a year of record losses --- in fact losses so vast, that the bank actually went belly up (hence the sale price of £1.00).

Where have we seen that since?

[Ed Jewett]

Somehow the two entries to follow belong here; I offer them without comment or analysis.

[Ed Jewett]

Creel, Goebbels and us
By Jawed Naqvi
Thursday, 04 Mar, 2010
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn...-430-zj-01


Some of the provisions of the US bill that purports to curb “anti-American incitement to violence in the Middle East” have set off alarm bells in the Arab world. –Photo by AFP
It is a fallacy that dictatorships control our thoughts and democracies free them. The fact is that the two work in tandem, often as pacesetters to spur each other. Joseph Goebbels stands accused as the forefather of thought-control and mass hysteria the Nazis whipped up against anyone who came in their way. Goebbels, however, had a role model in George Creel, a veteran journalist of the Denver Post who was enlisted by President Woodrow Wilson to turn a nation of pacifist Americans into warmongers and haters of Germans.
Creel headed the Committee on Public Information set up by Wilson at the start of the First World War to coordinate “not propaganda as the Germans defined it, but propaganda in the true sense of the word, meaning the propagation of faith”. With the state’s enormous resources and with the help of a conniving (democratic?) media Creel found success within six months.
“The war-mongering population … wanted to destroy everything German, tear the Germans limb to limb, go to war and save the world,” wrote Noam Chomsky about America’s diabolical manouevre that the Nazis were to emulate years later. “It was a major achievement, and it led to a further achievement. Right at that time and after the war the same techniques were used to whip up a hysterical Red Scare, as it was called.”
Intellectuals, including eminent writers, were more vulnerable to the nationalistic virus than they are thought to have been. In Britain, around the same time as Creel’s exploits, David Lloyd George, chancellor of the exchequer, was given the task of setting up a war propaganda bureau (WPB). He appointed the successful writer and fellow Liberal MP Charles Masterman as head of the organisation.
Masterman invited 25 leading British authors to the WPB headquarters to discuss ways of promoting Britain’s interests during the war. Those who attended the meeting included Arthur Conan Doyle, Arnold Bennett, John Masefield, Ford Madox Ford, William Archer, G.K. Chesterton, Sir Henry Newbolt, John Galsworthy, Thomas Hardy, Rudyard Kipling, Gilbert Parker, G.M. Trevelyan and H.G. Wells. All the writers present at the conference are said to have agreed to the utmost secrecy, and it was not until 1935 that the activities of the WPB became known to the general public. Some who attended the meeting agreed to write pamphlets and books that would promote the government’s view of the situation.
The information ministry set up in Britain during the two wars was to become the prototype for similar ministries in India and Pakistan, and elsewhere in the developing world. Like Creel, who had on his committee the secretary of state, navy and so forth, the ‘information ministries’ are ably assisted in India and Pakistan by every government department, led by the home and defence ministries and their intelligence outfits, to create and disseminate propaganda.
A new US bill aimed at taming the foreign media perceived as hostile to American interests is expected to continue to lean on the tradition set by Woodrow Wilson and which has been dutifully followed by eager beavers elsewhere. There are of course different ways of dealing with a channel like Al Jazeera for example. One is to not allow it to broadcast in a country by legal or bureaucratic fiat, as happens to be the case in India.
The other way is to bomb the supposedly recalcitrant broadcasters as happens in the Middle East. In Pakistan journalists can be killed or made to ‘disappear’. In India, in the tradition of Creel, they are co-opted.
Some of the provisions of the US bill that purports to curb “anti-American incitement to violence in the Middle East” have set off alarm bells in the Arab world. The bill pleads gratuitously that though freedom of the press and freedom of expression are the foundations of free and prosperous societies worldwide, “with the freedom of the press and freedom of expression comes the responsibility to repudiate purveyors of incitement to violence”.
Then it comes to the point. “For years, certain media outlets in the Middle East, particularly those associated with terrorist groups, have repeatedly published or broadcast incitements to violence against the United States and Americans.”
“Television channels that broadcast incitement to violence against Americans, the United States and others have demonstrated the ability to shift their operations to different countries and their transmissions to different satellite providers in order to continue broadcasting and to evade accountability.”
“Television channels such as al-Manar, al-Aqsa, al-Zawra, and others that broadcast incitement to violence against the United States and Americans aid Foreign Terrorist Organisations in the key functions of recruitment, fundraising, and propaganda.”
So what is one to do about the US concerns? The American bill provides that the US would “designate as Specially Designated Global Terrorists satellite providers that knowingly and willingly contract with entities designated as [such] … to broadcast their channels, or to consider implementing other punitive measures against satellite providers that transmit al-Aqsa TV, al-Manar TV, al-Rafidayn TV, or any other terrorist owned and operated station.”
The United States would consider state-sponsorship of anti-American incitement to violence when determining the level of assistance to, and frequency and nature of relations with, all states.
And finally, it would “urge all governments and private investors who own shares in satellite companies or otherwise influence decisions … to oppose transmissions of telecasts by … Specially Designated Global Terrorist owned and operated stations that openly incite their audiences to commit acts of terrorism or violence against the United States and its citizens”.
How is Pakistan going to cope with its provisions? The best hope is that it will target only the ‘rogue’ channels in the Middle East, but who knows.
The truly amazing thing about the success of institutionalised propaganda is that it gets people worked up into such a frenzy that they readily embrace the absence of morality in their connivance.
A few weeks ago I met a group of pleasant, prosperous and generally agreeable Indians in San Francisco. The discussion revolved around the sacrifices that American democracy had to make to accommodate the authoritarian provisions of the Patriot Act.
Those present were Brahmins from Maharashtra, who would normally have fought the fascism of Mumbai’s Shiv Sena. But what one of them said to me on behalf of the others left me marvelling at the penetrating yet dangerous logic. “The Patriot Act has corroded some of my democratic rights, true. But I accept it because it has given me security against terrorism.”
The power of Creel and Goebbels over the people’s mind is like nuclear waste. It is not going away anytime soon, and its lethal effects could last for decades, even centuries.
The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Delhi.

[Ed Jewett]

Disturbing moves to create super-police for Arab satellite TV stations

Published on 23 January 2010


When Arab information ministers meet in Cairo on 24 January they are to discuss a joint proposal by the Egyptian and Saudi governments for the creation of a regional office to supervise Arab satellite TV stations.
The proposal is partly a response to bill adopted last month by the US House of Representatives that could result in satellite operators themselves being branded as “terrorist entities” if they contract their services to TV stations classified as “terrorist” by the US Congress. It is also an outcome of discussions begun by the Arab League in 2008.
“This proposal is disturbing, to say the least,” Reporters Without Borders said. “The danger is that this super-police could be used to censor all TV stations that criticise the region’s governments. It could eventually be turned into a formidable weapon against freedom of information.”
This “Office for Arab Satellite Television” would be in charge of enforcing guidelines aimed at ensuring that Arab TV stations respect the ethical standards and moral values of Arab society as well as ensuring that they no longer serve as fronts or outlets for “terrorist” organisations.
The original proposal for such an office was made in February 2008 by Arab League secretary-general Amr Moussa. It was recently revived by the Saudi government, which controls Arabsat, and the Egyptian government, which controls Nilesat.
It seems that Riyadh and Cairo hope to ride a current that supports the reaffirmation of traditional values. The main TV stations targeted by the proposal are Al Jazeera, the Hamas station Al-Aqsa TV and the Hezbollah station Al-Manar.
The Arab League’s 22 member countries are nonetheless far from being unanimous about the proposal. In fact, the battle lines have been drawn between those in favour and those against. The pro camp centres on Saudi Arabia and Cairo. Those already clearly defined as members of the contra camp include Lebanon and Qatar.
There are many stumbling blocks on the road to agreement. Some fear this office would end up controlling content on privately-owned TV stations. Others have voiced concern about loss of sovereignty. Technical questions have been raised. Who will be members of this office? How will they be appointed? What will their exact powers be? And what punishments will they be able to impose?
The issue of funding has also been raised as well as the more symbolic question of where the office will be located. Will it be attached to the Arab League’s secretariat or to the Standing Committee of Arab Media?


http://www.rsf.org/Disturbing-moves-to-c...super.html

[Magda Hassan]

Thanks for that Ed. I wouldn't doubt such a thing is happening and the corrupt Egypt and Saudi Arabia are good friends of the US and have their own reasons for wanting to control the media which fit nicely with US aims. I am just a bit/lot wary of RSF.
http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/...php?t=1867

[Ed Jewett]

Yep. That's why I didn't comment or analyze. (It's a good thing I'm not in charge of the Middle Eastern bureau for understanding and analysis.)tupido3: