25 years ago this day.

[kookbreaker]

One of the most succinct articles on Mumia was actually written by a Socialist. Rodney Anonymous' Awww Screw Mumia sums things up quite well. Especially with this sentence:

I'm a Socialist. I'm anti Death Penalty and pro Choice, and I think that the sooner the left drops Mumia as its poster-child the better.

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus,

Can you read the rebuttal and really tell me that this was a mistake, and not deliberate, planned dishonesty? AIUSA went out of their way to avoid getting information that might point to Mumia being guilty. They essentially just parroted what Mumia's lawyers were claiming with a bit more dramatic license.

'Tis not for me to show that it was a mistake, m'lad. Show me that it was deliberate, planned dishonesty.

It is the equivelant of a major news organization saying they did 'extensive research' on 911 and then you find out all they did was watch Loose Change.

You're stretching it. Nobody can be as loony as LoonyTunes.

In fairness, this was AIUSA, not the international organization. I have my disagreements with AI but they were not directly responsible for this 'paper'.

Can you show a pattern of this behavior with AIUSA?

 

[CFLarsen]

Mis understanding the facts is a mistake.

Willfully ignoring them because they don't fit your anti American and anti death penalty agenda is a different matter.

I am not ignoring anything. I am just pointing out that it is perhaps not so smart to dismiss AI because of one (possible) mistake.

It would be difficult to support anything, in that case.

 

[kookbreaker]

'Tis not for me to show that it was a mistake, m'lad. Show me that it was deliberate, planned dishonesty.

What would you call it when you claim to have a balanced account, yet have managed not to interview anyone on one side of the arguement. I would not call it a mistake.

You're stretching it. Nobody can be as loony as LoonyTunes.

Have you read some of the Mumia material? Its not as spectacular as LC, but often just as nutty.

Can you show a pattern of this behavior with AIUSA?

No I can't, but I did not say I would.

 

[Deathshead]

Having lived in the Philly area on and off for many years this story is not news to me. The Faulkner case is cut and dry. If you read the transcripts it is difficult to come to any other conclusion.
As far as Ernesto 'Che' is concerned, type in any search engine the following. Assassins, bumbler. A great read follows by Humberto Fontova. I have also approached several people wearing Che shirts. They knew nothing about the real person, only the myths.

 

[CFLarsen]

What would you call it when you claim to have a balanced account, yet have managed not to interview anyone on one side of the arguement. I would not call it a mistake.

What exactly is gained by that? The report (which, curiously enough, the David Faulkner site has a faulty link to), specifically states that:

After many years of monitoring Mumia Abu-Jamal's case and a thorough study of original documents, including the entire trial transcript

If you want to bring up things that were not used in court, that's fine. But AI is concerned with whether the actual court proceedings were OK or not.

Have you read some of the Mumia material? Its not as spectacular as LC, but often just as nutty.

Are you talking about the AIUSA report? Anyone can come up with a nutty argument.

No I can't, but I did not say I would.

So, you only have this one incident? Isn't that a bit premature, to dismiss AIUSA on account of just one mistake (as you call it)?

 

[gumboot]

You're stretching it. Nobody can be as loony as LoonyTunes.

Actually the methodology of "Loose Change" and the AIUSA report is strikingly similar.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

What would you call it when you claim to have a balanced account, yet have managed not to interview anyone on one side of the arguement. I would not call it a mistake.

Not to mention stating things as fact that are quite blatantly the complete opposite - for example describing the accounts of the witnesses as "inconsistant" despite the fact that three of them specifically physically identified Jamal at the scene of the crime, five minutes after it happened.

-Gumboot

 

[CFLarsen]

Actually the methodology of "Loose Change" and the AIUSA report is strikingly similar.

-Gumboot

How so?

 

[kookbreaker]

What exactly is gained by that? The report (which, curiously enough, the David Faulkner site has a faulty link to), specifically states that:

They specifcally parrot comments by Mumia's then lawyers. THESE 'MYTHS' ARE THINGS THAT ONE CANNOT DETERMINE FROM THE COURT DOCUMENTS! YOU HAD TO GET THEM FROM THE MUMIA MEDIA MACHINE!

There is nothing that indicates that Mumias trial lawyer was a hack foisted on him by the courts. Nothing in the documents says anything about the money for Mumia's trial. Examining the documents would show the EXACT OPPOSITE of what they claim. The attacks on Judge Sabo are straight from the Mumia media machine, not from the official documents.

This means they either talked with Mumia's lawyers or just picked up their media packet wholesale. Either way, they failed in any effort to be objective, which the tone of the article tries to present themselves as being.

So, you only have this one incident? Isn't that a bit premature, to dismiss AIUSA on account of just one mistake (as you call it)?

I didn't. Claus. Someone else did. They may have their reasons and you'll have to ask them. I personally am annoyed with AI for various reasons, but I do not dismis them entirely. They did good work in the past and frankly just need to get their act a bit more on track.

I don't consider this a mistake.The Adoption of this tactic by AIUSA was a mistake (trying to make their case against the DP by bringing attention to guilty parties) but writing a delibeately deceptive article and dsiguising it as being objective is well past 'mistake'.

 

[gumboot]

How so?

Well, pulling out facts, presenting them in a distorted light, and then building an argument of emotion based on that.

Cherrypicking quotes.

Statements of fact that directly contradict the evidence.

Implication and insinuation in the form of questions and open-ended remarks that are designed to cast doubt or slander without directly stating their case.

Failing to back up assertions with evidence.

Making strawman arguments.

Using questionable resources instead of reliable ones that say the complete opposite.

That sort of thing.

-Gumboot

 

[kookbreaker]

How so?

Quote Mining.

Poisoning the well for 'background' (Philly cops under Rizzo vs. 'Northwoods')

Ignoring or minimizing vast amounts of evidence that actually point the crime in question (Ignoring the ballistics and witness evidence vs. ignoring the plane debris and eyewitnesses at the Pentagon).

For starters.

 

[gumboot]

Poisoning the well for 'background' (Philly cops under Rizzo vs. 'Northwoods')

Ignoring or minimizing vast amounts of evidence that actually point the crime in question (Ignoring the ballistics and witness evidence vs. ignoring the plane debris and eyewitnesses at the Pentagon).

For starters.

SNAP! I missed two!

-Gumboot

 

[CFLarsen]

They specifcally parrot comments by Mumia's then lawyers. THESE 'MYTHS' ARE THINGS THAT ONE CANNOT DETERMINE FROM THE COURT DOCUMENTS! YOU HAD TO GET THEM FROM THE MUMIA MEDIA MACHINE!

Why are you screaming?

There is nothing that indicates that Mumias trial lawyer was a hack foisted on him by the courts.

Why not?

Nothing in the documents says anything about the money for Mumia's trial. Examining the documents would show the EXACT OPPOSITE of what they claim. The attacks on Judge Sabo are straight from the Mumia media machine, not from the official documents.

This means they either talked with Mumia's lawyers or just picked up their media packet wholesale. Either way, they failed in any effort to be objective, which the tone of the article tries to present themselves as being.

How do you know they didn't speak to the other part?

I didn't. Claus. Someone else did.

You must have missed this one, then:

The Amnesty International paper was a joke. The very fact that they didn't even bother to interview a single person involved in the trial or the day of the event, yet claimed that they did immense research puts me in mind of those who claim to research 9-11 by watching youtube videos.

They may have their reasons and you'll have to ask them.

Me? Shouldn't you be the one asking them for their reasons?

I personally am annoyed with AI for various reasons, but I do not dismis them entirely. They did good work in the past and frankly just need to get their act a bit more on track.

I don't consider this a mistake.The Adoption of this tactic by AIUSA was a mistake (trying to make their case against the DP by bringing attention to guilty parties) but writing a delibeately deceptive article and dsiguising it as being objective is well past 'mistake'.

I have yet to see evidence of it being deliberate.

Well, pulling out facts, presenting them in a distorted light, and then building an argument of emotion based on that.

Cherrypicking quotes.

Statements of fact that directly contradict the evidence.

Implication and insinuation in the form of questions and open-ended remarks that are designed to cast doubt or slander without directly stating their case.

Failing to back up assertions with evidence.

Making strawman arguments.

Using questionable resources instead of reliable ones that say the complete opposite.

That sort of thing.

-Gumboot

Quote Mining.

Poisoning the well for 'background' (Philly cops under Rizzo vs. 'Northwoods')

Ignoring or minimizing vast amounts of evidence that actually point the crime in question (Ignoring the ballistics and witness evidence vs. ignoring the plane debris and eyewitnesses at the Pentagon).

For starters.

I'm seeing a hell of a lot of claims here. I'm not seeing a hell of a lot of evidence.

Note that I have no particular opinion on this case. I'm just reacting to claims being made, without evidence.

I'm funny that way.

 

[Pyrrho]

So, Claus, what do you know about the Mumia case?

 

[kookbreaker]

Why are you screaming?

Because you are being deliberately dense, Claus. You are defending the undefendable. You complained to me that the AIUSA article just worked from court documents when it is obvious that was not the case.

Why not?

Umm, becuase there isn't. Why would there be?

How do you know they didn't speak to the other part?

Danilefaulkner.com which is much more thorough, did ask the relvenat parties, most of whom are involved in some way with danilefaulkner.com. They could be lying, but I doubt it.

You must have missed this one, then:

I said the paper was a joke Claus, you must have missed where you said:

Isn't that a bit premature, to dismiss AIUSA on account of just one mistake

Which is NOT what I said.

I have yet to see evidence of it being deliberate.

If it was not deliberate it was unbelievably sloppy work. Either way...

I'm seeing a hell of a lot of claims here. I'm not seeing a hell of a lot of evidence.

Sorry Claus, but you will have to actually read the AIUSA article and its rebuttal. I'm not about to retype the whole thing here. You'll just need to find out for yourself. The evidence is in the article and that's all there is to it.

Note that I have no particular opinion on this case.

No opinion? Interesting. You were previously talking about the article and how we should consider it to be a mistake or deliberate obfuscation.

I'm just reacting to claims being made, without evidence.

The evidence is in the article. If you cannot seethe paralells to Loose Change tactics then that's your problem. I pointed out several, as did gumboot, and they are not exactly hidden.

I'm funny that way.

What's funny is that you seem to be blind to CT tactics when they are right in front of you. Is it really that hard to admit that AIUSA used the same tactics that Dylan Avery did?

 

[CFLarsen]

So, Claus, what do you know about the Mumia case?

Like I said, I'm not particularly interested in this case. I am, however, interested in evidence.

Because you are being deliberately dense, Claus. You are defending the undefendable. You complained to me that the AIUSA article just worked from court documents when it is obvious that was not the case.

Is it? So far, I have only seen claims.

Umm, becuase there isn't. Why would there be?

You said that there is nothing "that indicates that Mumias trial lawyer was a hack foisted on him by the courts". Why? Why wasn't he a "hack"? Why wasn't he "foisted" on Mumia?

Danilefaulkner.com which is much more thorough, did ask the relvenat parties, most of whom are involved in some way with danilefaulkner.com.

I didn't ask if that site was more thorough or if they spoke to relevant parties. I asked how you know AIUSA didn't speak to the other part.

They could be lying, but I doubt it.

Why?

I said the paper was a joke Claus, you must have missed where you said:

Which is NOT what I said.

OK, so when you compare AIUSA with those who do 9/11 research via YouTube, you are not dismissing AIUSA?

If it was not deliberate it was unbelievably sloppy work. Either way...

There is a hell of a difference between incompetence and deliberation.

Sorry Claus, but you will have to actually read the AIUSA article and its rebuttal. I'm not about to retype the whole thing here. You'll just need to find out for yourself. The evidence is in the article and that's all there is to it.

I didn't ask you to retype the whole thing. All I asked for was evidence of your claims.

Just, oh, one example of each claim? Is that insurmountable?

No opinion? Interesting. You were previously talking about the article and how we should consider it to be a mistake or deliberate obfuscation.

Indeed. It has to do with claims being made and what evidence is presented of those claims.

The evidence is in the article. If you cannot seethe paralells to Loose Change tactics then that's your problem.

It can hardly be my problem, since you have presented absolutely nothing to support your claims.

I pointed out several, as did gumboot, and they are not exactly hidden.

What you and gumboot has pointed out is claims. Not evidence.

What's funny is that you seem to be blind to CT tactics when they are right in front of you. Is it really that hard to admit that AIUSA used the same tactics that Dylan Avery did?

So far, I have not seen any evidence that AIUSA has used CT tactics. Only claims that they have.

 

[kookbreaker]

Like I said, I'm not particularly interested in this case. I am, however, interested in evidence.

Then read the court transcript.

Is it? So far, I have only seen claims.

Which claims are you having difficulty with?

You said that there is nothing "that indicates that Mumias trial lawyer was a hack foisted on him by the courts". Why? Why wasn't he a "hack"? Why wasn't he "foisted" on Mumia?

Oh, I'm sorry. I though that you might have had some time to review some of the material already referenced on this thread. I didn't know you were being lazy. Here:

http://danielfaulkner.com/indexmyth10.html

I didn't ask if that site was more thorough or if they spoke to relevant parties. I asked how you know AIUSA didn't speak to the other part.

Let's say there is no evidence that they did so. Wheras there is evidence (I already presented it) that they did talk to the Mumia side.

Why?

Because they've shown more honesty and forthcomingness in my experience than the 'other side'.

OK, so when you compare AIUSA with those who do 9/11 research via YouTube, you are not dismissing AIUSA?

In this case I am. As to the entire organization? That's a different matter.

There is a hell of a difference between incompetence and deliberation.

True, but when sloppiness allows you to hold up a politcal agenda one has but to wonder.

I didn't ask you to retype the whole thing. All I asked for was evidence of your claims.

OK. Which ones?

Just, oh, one example of each claim? Is that insurmountable?

I gave you examples of mine.

So far, I have not seen any evidence that AIUSA has used CT tactics. Only claims that they have.

I gave you examples already.

 

[senorpogo]

Twenty-five years ago today, Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner was killed...by Mumia Abu Jamal.

Thanks for the story.

It's also worth noting that all the attention that Mumia receives is something of a disservice to people who are legitimately wrongfully imprisoned for crimes they did not commit. Supporting a legitimate killer's delusional defense distracts and turns people against others who may have real grievance with their conviction.

 

[Brainster]

I have long thought that the focus on the possibility that innocent people are being executed by the anti-Death Penalty advocates is a tactical blunder that leads directly to CT woo. I understand it; the argument that somebody innocent is about to be executed is more compelling than the argument that we should not be executing people. But once you start down the "he's innocent" road you will be ignoring evidence of guilt and looking for the odd eyewitness, the little loose end, you'll start quote-mining... it's inevitable because you have started with the conclusion instead of the evidence.