We already know from Pudding Rob’s actions in Florida that these kind of laws are going to be used to:
Allow the executive or legislative branches to override the judiciary, thereby functionally eliminating the separation of powers
Override democracy by removing duly elected officials at the sole discretion of one person (Florida), or by another unelected body (Georgia)
Create a legal fiefdom where the executive or legislative branches can determine the outcome of judicial matters through sheer fiat by removing prosecutors who do not align with their intended outcomes, and then hand selecting those who do
Now now, it’s more general than that. In between shooting black people, they also love to use their laws on other things they don’t like, such as other people’s abortions (not their own, mind you – that’s different), LGBT people, and immigrants (especially scary turban men).
I mean, if they’re going to do it either way I’d rather a spy agency have this attitude than not. Silver linings and all that.
And before you smash those reactionary fingers on the screen/keyboard, I should be clear that Ed Snowden is a national hero and the NSA should, in an idealistic sense, be abolished. Will it? No.
I dig the latter part of the statement, but that first half bugs me. Shouldn’t they have a warrant in order to monitor someone to an extent where this needs to be stated?
This article is inaccurate or at least misleading in its title presentation. It's reporting on something that happened on October 20th, as the second paragraph notes, and was never actually enacted. In fact, Biden moved back from this and has been instead moving to restrict all weaponry sales to Israel in the past few days.
Biden has not been in any form of good light in my eyes in the past two months, but please don't spread fake or misleading information like this.
That's clearly the point for articles like this to even be written. There's no defense for a title like that when it's referring to something from a month ago that wasn't even enacted.
Suchman and Myers West both pointed to OpenAI’s close partnership with Microsoft, a major defense contractor, which has invested $13 billion in the LLM maker to date and resells the company’s software tools.
That explains it. Microsoft wants to cash in on their massive investment in OpenAI by embedding ChatGPT into every bit of software they can. Defense being an important sector for them, I’m surprised the military ban was ever in OpenAI’s usage policy.
Stupid question, why would they need to? Couldn’t they license the models under a ToS that is totally different from the public one? Isn’t the public ToS just for Joe Schmoes off the street?
Zaka volunteers have become ubiquitous in media reports about the attacks of October 7. They have been quoted by Reuters, CNN, New York Times, BBC, The Guardian, NBC News, Politico, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and many other outlets — with few, if any, mentions of past scandals or present controversies.
Keller-Lynn and Landes maintain a close friendship. Together they produced two podcast series: One, Us among the Israelis covered media messaging by the Israeli government and military, among other topics.
Petition to ban every single article from these propaganda outlets when they post accusations against Palestinians. They clearly do not have any journalistic integrity.
If you are talking about Miral Abdush, even her own family claimed that she was not raped.
There is no forensic evidence of her being raped.
That photo was a woman with her skirt being flipped up.
Unless you have cool new intel which no other journalist has in which case please link it or send it to me in a DM.
Here’s some fun reading material:
Family of “the girl in the black dress” accuses NYT of having “invented” rape claim
You write, “Based largely on the video evidence — which was verified by The New York Times — Israeli police officials said they believed that [Gal] Abdush was raped, and she has become a symbol of the horrors visited upon Israeli women and girls during the Oct. 7 attacks.”
However, the sister of Gal Abdush, Miral Alter, stated in a January 2 Instagram comment that “she was not raped… There was no proof that there was rape, it was only a video.” She also pointed out that the timeline between Gal’s last message to the family and the time of her reported murder made it impossible for a rape to occur: “How in 4 minutes [were] they also raped and burned [?]”
Alter concluded, “the New York Times that came to us indicated that they wanted to do a story in memory of Gal and Nagy [her husband] and that’s why we approved. If we knew that it was a headline like rape slaughter, we would never agree. Never.”
Is Alter’s statement accusing you of misleading her family true? And why have you ignored her comments bluntly stating that her sister had not been raped? Did you and Alter ever discuss your theory that Abdush was the victim of a sexual assault?
Gal Abdush’s brother-in-law has also spoken out against the claims contained in your article. In a January 4 interview with Israel’s Channel 13, Nissim Abdush denied that Gal had been raped, insisting that it would have been impossible given her husband was present with her at the time. “The media invented it,” he stated. Nissim Abdush also accused the international press – presumably referring to you – of resorting to sensationalism in place of evidence-based journalism. Finally, he lamented that the false claims of his sister-in-law’s rape were harmful to the psychological health of her orphaned children.
Once again, why have you failed to incorporate statements by a family member of Gal Abdush explicitly contradicting key claims in your article?
Eti Bracha, the mother of Gal Abdush, told Israel’s YNet she was first told that her daughter had been raped when she was contacted by you. “We didn’t know about the rape at first, we only knew when the New York Times reporter contacted us. They said they cross-examined the evidence and said that Gal had been sexually assaulted. Until now we don’t know what exactly happened,” added the mother.
Is it normal journalistic protocol to influence a family’s perspective of a loved one’s killing, when the crime remains unsolved? How did the New York Times obtain evidence which the Bracha-Abdush family had not yet seen? And what evidence existed beyond the video mentioned in your article?
There are more issues with your reporting on the killing of Gal Abdush. You claim that a video of Abdush filmed on October 8 by someone named Eden Wessely “went viral, with thousands of people responding, desperate to know if the woman in the black dress [was] their missing friend, sister or daughter.”
However, as the independent outlet Mondoweiss pointed out, you “did not link to the video but released a distant, indistinct image from it that revealed nothing.” Mondoweiss questions how you “confirmed the existence of these responses since Wessely’s Instagram account has been banned, and she created a new account in mid-December.”
Further, as Mondoweiss noted, “There is currently no trace of the video on the internet despite the [NY Times] claim that it ‘went viral.’ Moreover, the Israeli press, despite reporting on hundreds of stories about the October 7 victims, never mentioned ‘the woman in the black dress’ even once previous to the December 28 story.”
So where is the video that you claimed “went viral”? If it contained such powerful evidence of sexual violence, why was it not featured in your article? And how did you confirm the thousands of responses to the video by people supposedly demanding information about “the woman in the black dress”?
Her own family was not there. They saw the same photos as everyone else. They are in pain and it is understandable if they don’t want to believe she was raped, but I can draw my own conclusions.
Then explain why the IDF found no forensic evidence of her being raped. Or anyone else being raped.
A non-burned body would surely contain evidence.
The rape story is incredibly stupid to begin with. Rape only happens after combat is over. Even the hostages that were release all said they were not raped.
You can’t observe anything, because you don’t want to look and you don’t want to listen. Even when freed captives report sexual abuse. You’ve already made up your mind.
As for Israel, they are also responsible for atrocities. Both sides in this conflict are filled with a deep hatred that brings out the worst in humanity.
The same party that lied about rapes on Oct7, and are actual rapists are your credible source?
If only the IDF allowed interviews with the released hostages. But they don’t since the first interviews with released hostages all said they were treated well which is bad optics when the IDF is the side actually doing the raping.
And again no forensic evidence this time from women that are alive… 🤔
Who’s that he was not in the article. New IDF recruit?
The “witness” in the article changed his story like 3 times until he saw beheaded women which provably didn’t exist. And at the moment he was supposedly seeing the rape he was talking rad selfies.
Oh yeah and his friend which was there right next to him did not corroborate the story.
Just so many rapes and zero evidence ever collected. Really sad and coincidental you’d almost think the IDF was lying to manufacture consent for Genocide. The IDF would never lie right?
Zero evidence if you ignore eyewitness evidence. I guess you think basically nobody should ever be found guilty of rape.
Furthermore, the first witness did not contradict his story. In the TikTok video he describes Hamas murders, and in the later interview he describes the same Hamas murders and goes on to describe the rapes. Those accounts are consistent.
The second witness described Hamas rapes to the AP as well as in his video.
Of course since they are Israeli, they must have served in the IDF. It’s compulsory. So if you don’t believe anyone who served in the IDF that’s equivalent to not believing Jews, a pretty typical attitude for Hamas defenders.
Shari Mendes, an architect serving in the IDF reserves in a rabbinical unit, was deployed to a morgue to prepare bodies for burial after the attacks. An American originally from New Jersey, Mendes did multiple TV and print interviews about her experiences. “We have seen women who have been raped, from the age of children through to the elderly,” she told reporters, emphasizing, “This is not just something we saw on the internet, we saw these bodies with our own eyes.”
For months, Mendes has served as one of the most visible witnesses bolstering Israel’s allegations of systematic rape. But few media outlets featuring her claims have mentioned the valid concerns about her credibility and her history of promoting a false story. She told the Daily Mail last October, “A baby was cut out of a pregnant woman and beheaded and then the mother was beheaded.”
On December 5, as Israel engaged in a global media push around its allegations that Hamas had committed mass rapes, Mendes was a featured speaker at an event in New York organized by Israel’s mission to the U.N. on sexual violence and the October 7 attacks. The Times of Israel reported that Mendes “is not legally qualified to determine rape.”
This article doesn’t seriously question whether rapes occurred, even acknowledging “Sexual violence is common in warfare”. It just says that rape wasn’t part of an organized campaign, and for all I know it may be right.
The fact that Israel has not produced forensic evidence for individual rapes does not prove that no such deeds took place. … But there is a difference between making specific allegations of rape or sexual assault and charging that organized mass rape was a central component of an operation meticulously planned over the course of years. Israel’s evidence of the latter comes nowhere near to measuring up to its claims.
It debunks many of the rape cases by pointing out there is either evidence contradicting them, or by showing that the “witnesses” already have a reputation for lying. since they were the people that claimed they saw 40 beheaded babies and women cut open. Which did not happen according to the IDF themselves.
For another list of massive inconsistencies there is also this article.
Because Ron Fregle was not even mentioned as a witness in the Screams without Words article. In fact when searching his name only irrelevant stuff comes up. Is he in any article or is it just that video?
After a million “witnesses” being exposed for making false statements you can’t seriously expect me to take these 'eyewitnesses" seriously anymore.
There are a lot of CCTV cameras in israel an somehow none of them manages to capture any rape? And there’s no forensic evidence? And all of the witnesses bring stories filled with holes or straight up lies?
Again, the article does not claim that no rapes occurred:
The question has never been whether individual acts of sexual assault may have occurred on October 7. Rape is not uncommon in war
It argues that the NYT violated its editorial standards, which is an entirely different question.
It also tries to cast doubt on Cohen’s eyewitness account, but I find it unpersuasive. First it points out that Cohen said “The terrorists, people from Gaza, raped girls” but only described one incident. Big deal. This was not a deposition. People often generalize, especially about shocking things. People say things like “Putin kills his political opponents” and “Trump rapes women” even if they only know about Navalny and Carroll.
It also points out that Cohen’s companion saw a woman stabbed whereas Cohen saw a woman raped and stabbed. Again, unpersuasive. They weren’t shooting a documentary, they were hiding. It’s entirely possible they saw different parts of an event, or even different women. If you read eyewitness accounts of the Parkland shooting you will find that not everyone mentions the exact same details, but that certainly doesn’t mean they are liars.
This is true. Which is why the Palestinians women that were raped by the IDF were actually raped by the IDF.
The problem is that after so many false israeli “eyewitnesses” it’s rather difficult to take one of them who was not even involved in the huge false investigation by NYT where they turned over every rock to find made up rape fanfics seriously.
You describe a 24-year-old accountant identified as “Sapir” as “one of the Israeli police’s key witnesses.”
Yet one of Sapir’s key claims undermines the rest of her testimony. According to the Times, “she saw three other women raped and terrorists carrying the severed heads of three more women.”
Given that no record exists of women being beheaded on October 7, why did you include this claim from Sapir? Does such an assertion not undermine her credibility and raise doubts about the rest of her testimony? And why, at minimum, did you not mention that there is no forensic evidence to support Sapir’s claim?
Testimony by supposed paramedic debunked by official records, previous record of lying to media
You write, “A paramedic in an Israeli commando unit said that he had found the bodies of two teenage girls in a room in Be’eri. One was lying on her side, he said, boxer shorts ripped, bruises by her groin. The other was sprawled on the floor face down, he said, pajama pants pulled to her knees, bottom exposed, semen smeared on her back.”
You report that the paramedic conveniently “kept moving and did not document the scene.” However, “neighbors of the two girls killed — who were sisters, 13 and 16 — said their bodies had been found alone, separated from the rest of their family.”
That paramedic appears to be the same source CNN relied on in its own special report accusing Hamas of a systematic and deliberate campaign of rape on October 7. He is a supposed paramedic from Israeli Air Force Special Tactics rescue unit 669 identified only as “G.” And like your other sources, he has proven to be an unreliable, if not deeply dishonest, witness.
Times’ “rescuer” source has established pattern of lying, embellishment; works for group with documented history of sexual abuse, corruption
You prominently feature testimony by Yossi Landau, Southern Commander of the ZAKA organization. For critical background on Landau and his organization, we refer you to Max Blumenthal’s December 6 investigation for The Grayzone, “Scandal-stained Israeli ‘rescue’ group fuels October 7 fabrications.”
Were you aware, as The Grayzone documented, that Landau’s previous claims of having seen beheaded babies and a fetus cut from a dead woman’s womb on October 7 have been discredited not only by the Israeli newspaper by Haaretz, but by the Biden White House, which retracted the president’s claim that he had seen photographs of beheaded babies? In fact, only one baby is recorded among those killed on October 7, which means any claim to have seen multiple dead babies must be dismissed out of hand.
No women were beheaded on Oct7. Only two men were mutilated. Which means Sapir’s claims were false. The amount of heads is also impossible as three is more than two.
I have clicked on your link but it’s just footage of some people talking
Is the NYT ever gonna publish an explanation of this mess, or do they get away with just having redacted the article to include “may”. Because “may” only ever meant “may or may not”.
I have been a subscriber for long, but that ends till they do a mea culpa.
I remember the “mature adults” told me that I needed to learn journalism skills and critics reading when the NYT article full of holes came out and I said it looked super fake since there’s zero evidence and the witnesses were “anonymous”
They said that NYT is a premium newspaper and referenced Gettleman’s Pullitzer prize a lot. Thus you need to believe anything they say.
Then my posts from The Grayzone fully debunking it got removed cause MBFC gives them a bad rating.
Where you guys at. Admit I was right. I was down at - 9999 downvotes back then with an army of “mature adults” trying to gaslight me into supporting israel’s Genocide.
theintercept.com
Oldest