#like one of his special interests I would say. is the invention of nuclear weapons | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

duhragonball · 3 years

Photo

So, Terminator 3. T2 was such a huge hit that everyone just assumed a third movie was a given, but it took twelve years for it to finally happen. The Wikipedia article has a section about the delay, but it’s really long and complicated, and I’m not that interested anymore. The main takeaway is that James Cameron, who directed the first two movies, wasn’t involved in the making of T3. Apparently, he really wanted to do it in 1995, but by the time the rights and everything got squared away, he got busy doing Titanic and Avatar or whatever else, and he decided that he’d already told the story he wanted to tell in the first two movies. But he did tell Arnold Schwarzenegger to go for it if he got an offer.

I guess the reason I’m explaining all of this was because I always thought Cameron did make T3, and the reason Linda Hamilton wasn’t in it was because of hard feelings over their divorce in 1999. Which sounds kind of dumb now that I type it out. A fan would think that, because they see actors appearing or not appearing in movies as the ultimate sanction, but for them it’s strictly business. Arnold was in T3 because they paid him $30 million, not because he desperately wanted to play the character again. According to the Wikipedia article, Hamilton wasn’t in the movie because there just wasn’t much they could do with Sarah Connor in the story. Her role was to prepare John Connor for his own role. This movie features him as an adult, so there’s nothing more for her to do. Hamilton recognized this, and declined to participate.

I think T3 had a lot going against it, because it had so much to live up to, and fans of T2 had been waiting so long. I think everyone wanted the T3 movie James Cameron might have made in 1995, but what they got in 2003 was this movie, which didn’t quite live up to the hype. I’m not sure anything else could have lived up to the hype, though. T2 had some mighty big shoes to fill.

The big problem is that it’s basically the same plot structure as T2. Two more Terminators come from the future and they fight over the life of John Connor. After escaping the bad Terminator, John tries to stop Skynet from taking over and nuking humanity, and they end up having a final showdown with the bad Terminator along the way. It really is the same movie in a lot of ways, so it just begs to be compared to T2, which only magnifies its flaws.

The main difference is that John thought he already stopped Skynet years ago, so he’s horrified to learn that he only postponed the inevitable. He goes to a lot of trouble to try again, but the audience probably already anticipates that this won’t work. T2 was ambiguous about this, but T3 actually shows the nuclear missiles launching and destroying their targets. So it’s kind of a downer to watch. We even learn that Future John will die in 2032, because the good Terminator in this movie was the one who kills him, before he got reprogrammed to protect Present John.

The other difference is the addition of Kate Brewster, who’s fated to become John’s second-in-command and wife. The bad Terminator was actually sent to kill her and other would-be Resistance leaders, until it discovers John and changes priorities. Future Kate is also the one who sends the good Terminator back in time. I never fully understood Kate’s purpose in the movie, since she’s basically a spare John, but I think they needed a viewpoint character. In T1, Sarah was the viewpoint character, then it was John in T2. But in T3, Sarah’s dead and John already knows all about this stuff, so there needed to be a new character with a special destiny. The trouble is that I don’t think Kate gets a chance to digest this very well, probably because we’ve already covered this twice before already.

I think this is the movie where the time travel stuff really went off the rails. T1 was very consistent about establishing a predestination paradox. T2 hinted that the future could be changed, but never made it clear whether it actually changed or not. The value was in the attempt, not the result. But the T-850 tells John that “Judgement Day is inevitable”, and that he only postponed it from its original date in 1997. So they managed to change the future, just not enough. Fair, but how does the T-850 know this? Shouldn’t he be from the same altered future, where Judgement Day happened in 2003?

Also, this movie introduces more Terminator varieties. In the first movie, the T-800 is stated to be new in the future. Then in the second movie, the T-800 admits that the T-1000 is much more sophisticated, because it’s an “advanced prototype.” In this movie, the T-850 claims to be obsolete, and says the T-X is much more advanced. So it sounds like Skynet was busily inventing better Terminators for these missions, except it shouldn’t have had time for that. It lost the war and had to use the time machine as a last-ditch effort. It’s weird enough that it used the time machine three times, but it shouldn’t have had years to do this. The Human Resistance captured the time machine shortly after winning the war, right? I really hope T4 explains some of this.

Roger Ebert called this movie “Essentially one long chase and fight, punctuated by comic, campy or simplistic dialogue." The first 24 minutes are fairly dull, but once it gets rolling, it’s pretty fun to watch. But he’s right. When I watched all the DBZ movies in 2019, I realized that Movie 7 is just one big fight scene, with some slice of life stuff at the beginning to set things up. T3′s basically the same, with very little else to occupy its time. T1 had the relationship between Sarah and Kyle, and T2 had Sarah’s hangups and John’s bonding with “Uncle Bob”. T3 really only has Kate and John hanging on for dear life as their protector drags them through the story. It’s a fun chase, with lots of guns and explosions and breaking stuff, but there’s not much more to it.

So what’s good about this movie? What makes it really stand out? Well, for openers, the T-X is pretty cool. The T-1000 was going to be difficult to top, and I don’t think the T-X ever succeeded, but it wasn’t for lack of trying. She has liquid metal on top of an endoskeleton, so she can disguise herself, but she can’t seep under doors and stuff like that. Also, she has weapons built into her body, so she’s the only time traveler who could actually bring future weapons with her into the past. Also, she can control machines, like when she hijacks a bunch of police cars and fire trucks to help her chase down John. She’s ridiculously overpowered, and she does not give a fuck who knows it. The previous Terminators at least attempted to keep a low profile, revealing themselves only when ready to attack, but the T-X just wreaks havoc all over the place. She’s not worried about the authorities or a lack of firepower, or anything at all, so she’s free to execute her mission with reckless abandon.

Second, I take some solace in John Connors personal crisis in this movie. He was kind of chill about the whole thing in T2, because he got his mom back and he had a cool robot pal, and they seemed to have the whole Skynet problem figured out. In this movie, Sarah’s dead, and he doesn’t know what to do with himself. He can’t quite believe that Judgement Day won’t come, so he lives off the grid and tries to avoid everyone. He doesn’t want the Future War to happen, but at the same time, his life has no purpose without it. Later, he becomes despondent and says that he must not be the chosen one after all, because he’s no leader and he never was.

Except, he is, and he has to be, and he becomes one at the end of the movie, when he finally accepts his fate. There’s something very powerful about the shot of Kate holding his hand as he prepares to give orders to the other survivors on the radio. They’re stuck in this dark future now, and they have to see it through together.

I think, whenever I watched these movies before, that I never really “got” John Connor as a character. In T2 he was a kid, so I just wrote him off. He wasn’t John Connor yet, so it didn’t matter much. In T3, he seemed extremely pathetic, and I took his lack of confidence at face value. I thought he really wasn’t ready to lead, and he only ended up in that role by default. But this time around, I see how in T2 he was the moral center of the good guy team. Sarah was lashing out at everyone and the Terminator only cared about mission objectives, but John kept reminding everyone of the value of human life, and what they were all fighting for. Even as a kid, he got “it” in a way that others didn’t. In T3, he’s demoralized, but he still knows how to do this stuff, and how to lead. He just doesn’t feel motivated until the final act of the movie.

That didn’t stick with me when I first saw this movie in ‘03, but I’m older now, and less sure of myself than I used to be, and all the validation I get feels hollow and unconvincing. Like John, I may be aware that I have the capacity to do things, but it doesn’t always feel like it’s enough. That’s what T3 has that T2 doesn’t. It’s that crisis of confidence that separates the two films, although it’s subtle enough that it’s easy to overlook.

#mike watches the terminator

6 notes · View notes

atamascolily · 4 years

Text

lily liveblogs watching “The Terminator” for the first time

I cannot believe no one ever told me the first ten minutes of The Terminator are filled with naked men roaming 1980s Los Angeles. In addition to full-front Arnold Schwarzenegger nudity, there's a chase scene in which Kyle Reese's actor (no slouch himself in the muscles department) runs through a clothing store, dressing himself as he goes. The narrative economy of this movie, I tell you.

Whoever decided that time travel does not involve clothing was clearly having a lot of fun.

Also, I have no idea why the punks decided to make fun of a naked Arnold Schwarzenegger except they were probably drunk/stoned/high and fond of making poor life choices. Either that or they really were Too Stupid To Live.

Is the close up on Kyle Reese's stolen Nikes supposed to be product placement? I think it's product placement. This is the '80s after all.

OMG, a phone booth. This film was not supposed to be a period piece (or was it??), but it's unintentionally hilarious as such. Kyle Reese doesn't seem to know how to reach Sarah Connor otherwise... so the phone book gets to stand in for the Internet.

(god, if you're from his version of 2029, the fact that machines DON'T control everything seems both a) quaint and b) infinitely desirable by comparison.)

What's interesting is both the film's present and the film's future are dystopic hellholes. Yes, it's the middle of the night in Los Angeles, but the way it's filmed, with all the urban debris and trash and homeless wandering the streets very much parallels the future. The garbage truck in the present and the human-killing laser machine in the future are foils to each other.

EVERYONE'S HAIR, OH MY GOD.

It's kinda sad that food service is still visual shorthand for "sucky job" even in the present day, but you can tell Sarah Connor has spunk because she rides a moped and sasses her chain's mascot. Their outfits are terrible. And that kid putting ice cream on her--to the amusement of the assholes she's serving--what a nightmare.

Also, Sarah's friend is awesome and won my heart with one line: "In a hundred years, who's gonna care?" This takes on vast levels of irony given that Sarah Connor is the Chosen One--er, sorry, Chosen One's Mom. I really hope this friend doesn't die.

Child's toy truck getting run over by the Terminator's stolen car. NOT SUBTLE, Y'ALL.

Sarah's friend's first reaction to the news of another Sarah Connor being murdered is to track Sarah into the break room to watch. Efficient way of letting Sarah know something's up and another good character moment.

The contrast between the Terminator effortlessly starting the car and Kyle Reese's labored hotwiring is nicely done. The PTSD flashback as he watches the bulldozer thing is also very efficient way of conveying information without the need for infodumping dialogue. Of course he has a female friend who dies for added trauma. Sigh.

Oh, so she and the friend--whose name is Ginger--are roommates? Well, that explains a lot. Oh, nope, I’m wrong, different person.

SARAH CONNOR HAS A PET IGUANA, I'M CHARMED. She looks so sad holding her pet iguana while her date's voice mail message plays - no going out after she got all dressed up. But at least she has the Iguana of Consolation!

(his name is Pugsley omg omg omg asghkkfl)

Why the hell does Ginger's bf kiss Sarah on the cheek as she leaves? Are they that close to each other or is this a weird quasi-sexual harassment thing (like how he was only kinda embarrassed when she picked up the phone by mistake while he was doing his phone sex thing thinking she was Ginger?)

CREEPY PARKING GARAGE IS CREEPY.

The police are all, "shit, this is awful," and trying to do something, but it isn't going to go well. Also, you can tell it's the '80s because the police lieutenant just casually lights up indoors like it's no big deal.

Like, literally the plot of this movie depends upon a) Sarah Connor's name and address in the phonebook, and b) no cell phones. The fact that these two are intimately connected IRL amuses me greatly.

God, as soon as Ginger and her bf revealed they were staying home, I knew they were toast. The fact that they're shown having sex just makes it all the more inevitable.

I like that the police decide to get a jump on the press AND maybe alert the other Sarah Connors they haven't been able to reach by announcing it over the TV. Sarah's at a restaurant eating pizza so she actually sees it!

The only reason Sarah Connor survives is because the Terminator went very literally through the list and Kyle Reese went straight to the right person. The difference between human intelligence and AI?

I cannot BELIEVE the club doesn't check ID, but maybe it's an illegal club anyway? Nice relevant background techno.

Of course the police's gambit backfires because Sarah can't reach them when she tries to call...

OH MY GOD PUGSLEY THE IGUANA IS SO PRECIOUS (but seriously does not stay in his cage, lol). Please don't let the iguana die...

The dangers of earphones and not being able to hear your surroundings being illustrated literally as soon as the devices were invented.

OF COURSE SARAH IS GOING TO LEAVE HER VOICE MAIL MESSAGE WARNING GINGER OF DANGER AT THE WORST POSSIBLE MOMENT. And she's going to tell him her location, too. This is... god, I don't have words for this.

Sarah left her driver's license in her apartment, what? Or is that an old ID? I can't tell. Welp, now he knows what she looks like, which he clearly didn't before.

This scene where the Terminator shoots up the club with an automatic REALLY hasn't aged well. I feel sick to my stomach just watching it. Of course Sarah is the second-to-last one out and has a human shield, because of course she dies. Sigh.

"Come with me if you want to live." I think that's the first words Kyle Reese has spoken in this movie! Not that the Terminator has said much, either...

Of course the police show up at exactly the wrong moment and draw exactly the wrong conclusions. Of course they end up dead, too. Sigh.

I would say Kyle's driving is atrocious, but there's no actual roads in 2029 LA, so this is much better conditions than he's used to.

Gosh, what would this movie do without alleyways?

Sarah's like "Can you stop it?" and Kyle looks away sheepishly, all WELL I WOULD IF I HAD MY LASER WEAPONS FROM THE FUTURE INSTEAD OF YOUR PUNY '80S GUNS.

Oh, he says he's going to ditch the car, but instead Kyle finally explains things to Sarah, and we're in yet another parking garage. Parking garages and alleys, that's this movie. Oh, and hotwiring cars.

Kyle's monologue about the defense network computers setting off nuclear war is a very '80s manifestation of a very '80s fear. Several '80s fears, now that I think about it. (Wasn't this also the plot of War Games?) Not that it's not topical today, but I think it's expressed in different formats now.

I hate that Sarah is only special because she's the Source of the Savior instead of the actual savior herself. I hate this so much.

Kyle and the Terminator playing "who can shoot better while also driving" in a parking garage that seems to go on literally FOREVER, how is this possible. This is WHY shotgun is a thing.

Oh, good, he's finally letting Sarah drive while he shoots.

Ohhhh, now she's in police custody, and the Lieutenant is comforting her. I hope he doesn't die, but I know better than to hope that anyone other than the Final Girl survives this movie.

The "flex your artificial hand with a hole in it" scene is a bloody counterpart to Luke testing out his new prosthesis in ESB.

It says something about humans that the only way the machines could hunt them was to make them human-coated (human on the outside).

You can tell by the look on Kyle Reese's face when he says "Nobody goes home," that he knows he's on a suicide mission.

Why the hell doesn't John Connor go himself? Why was Kyle chosen? Because he had to lead humanity in the aftermath of Skynet's defeat or because it would make the upcoming plot twist that much more awkward? Probably both, but I wonder if they ever discussed this. "Uh... hi, dad? Dad-to-be?" (Reminder that Douglas Adams is right when he says the worst part of time travel is the grammar.)

Oh, god, the "eye repair" scene is nightmarish. Excellent job foreshadowing it, filmmakers. But still gross. So this is why he gets sunglasses.

(Does he have heat vision? Why do none of the future machines seem to have infrared sight? Wouldn't that be super-useful if you're human-hunting?)

Kyle Reese's "I DIDN'T BUILD THE FUCKING THING!" line is such a relatable mood. We the audience already knew that Time Travel = Mandatory Nudity, but I think it's a nice touch that Skynet assumed the Terminator could just work with whatever was available instead of needing to bring weapons. He’s weapon enough.

Also, this implies the Terminator is just human ENOUGH to pass through the field, which might have been a reason they started working with human-augmented machines in the first place. The reasoning seems to be--no, really--if you put enough living human tissue over a machine, it's "alive" enough for time travel. I don't understand how this works, exactly, but fine.

Oh, good, the cops are giving her body armor now. That can only help. Oh, no, it's a fake-out to explain how the Terminator survived being shot.

I don't understand how this movie is not a walking billboard for gun control, I really don't.

Kyle Reese being all "things are going to shit and I'm going to seize the moment". I think the policeman he slugged might actually survive if he was knocked unconscious and otherwise stayed out of trouble? Don't think the Terminator's going to bother when he's got his real prey to deal with...

And the lietunant who was nice to Sarah is dead. I knew that was going to happen. Great, now the other detective is, too. Sigh. NO ONE IN THIS MOVIE GETS TO LIVE EXCEPT SARAH... and maybe Pugsley the iguana? I don't think he's dead...

Oooh, oooh, another visual theme of this movie is broken glass and smashing windows to unlock things. DON'T FORGET THE BODY ARMOR ON YOUR WAY OUT. (If that's not Chekhov's body armor, I'm going to be very surprised.)

God, it's so weird to contrast the different fates of the Terminator franchise and the Star Wars films, especially given their similarities.

Oooh, oooh! Huddle together for warmth under a bridge! Fall in love!

Skynet has no freakin' subtlety. You can tell they're not human because they automatically decide the best way to keep Sarah Connor from having kids is to kill her, not to have her doctor give her a fake diagnosis so they can perform a hysterectomy or some other scheme. Or even just giving her birth control.

OR HOW ABOUT EVEN CREATING A SPECIAL MODEL TERMINATOR SHE COULD DATE WHO WAS STERILE AND THEREFORE SHE'D NEVER GET PREGNANT. And then Kyle Reese would be the obnoxious dude trying to break them up for the good of humanity and constantly trying to prove to Sarah her hot boyfriend is actually a robot, and Sarah just thinks he's delusional/trying to get in her pants.

(Oh, my god, I want this fic now.)

Oh, she just discovered Kyle's hurt now, ordering him to take off his clothes, there's only one way this can possibly end.

Nice contrast between the Terminator calmly repairing his bloodied self and Sarah feeling nauseous and having Kyle talk to her while she fixes him.

Oh, god, the way Kyle Reese describes John Connor makes me wonder if Kyle had a crush on HIM or if he knew he was John's father from the get-go. FICS FICS FICS, WHERE ARE THE FICS.

Oh, okay, so Reese volunteered because he wanted to meet "the legend--Sarah Connor". Please tell me she's a legend because she's a badass, not JUST because her son is important. Please. Or at least allow me to keep my illusions, okay?

The way Reese looks at her is distinctly hero-worshipping, which is kinda funny given their roles to date. Also, Sarah is pre-badass at this point -- she will become one as a result of the events of this film.

Sarah also has a problem with time travel tenses, I sympathize.

"Thank you, Sarah, for your courage through the dark years. I can't help you with what you must soon face except to say the future is not set.... You must survive or else the future will never exist."

LOL, John telling his mom she better level up or everyone is doomed... so why isn't SHE the savior again??

And--open question--what happened to HER by 2029? Why is it John and not Sarah who's in charge?

Ok, so the HKs DO have infrared, but what keeps them and the Terminator from finding people on various occasions? (Yes, plot, I know.)

"Tell me a bedtime story about your dystopic past-that-is-my-future and give me all kinds of Nightmare Fuel..." (That could have gone better.)

Where do Future Humans get their Future Guns and Gear?? Do they steal them from machines? How does that even WORK? Wouldn't it be easier for the machines to just, I don't know, get creative and kill them some other way?

Keeping with the machine-man parallels, Reese has his own "code numbers" rather like a serial number that he uses to ID himself.

DOGGIES! THERE ARE STILL DOGS IN THE FUTURE, yay!

Yup, the humans in 2029 live in squalor just like the homeless people in the film's present - which might explain why Kyle Reese is remarkably at home, with way less culture shock than you'd expect.

Too bad he and Sarah are on the run and can't go to a fast food restaurant or something fun he's never had before.

The future kids are watching a fire burn in the shell of a TV, OH MY GOD.

Like, it's kinda good the future isn't set because if this what humanity's come to, it might be better to send someone back in time and hope it goes differently? Of course, things can always get worse. Not that they had a choice - I think discovering the machines' plan forced their hand.

Kyle Reese has a photo - is that Sarah Connor? Or is that the woman who got killed earlier in the film? I can't tell.

Dogs barking at the fake people just like the dog barked at the Terminator in the '80s. Nice. Interesting they don't try to shoot the dogs.

Ahh,the photo is burning, the symbolism.... especially when Terminator's flesh melting is going to be a Thing coming up. Cut to: Sarah's sleeping face. Foreshadowing much? (Also: WORST BEDTIME STORY EVER.)

Okay, the way he brushes her face is kinda creepy and hasn't aged well. I hope Sarah has dogs in subsequent movies? I would if I were her.

OH MY GOD, the Terminator has suggested prompts for conversations and chooses "Fuck you, asshole". DYING.

Oh, he's got her address book... and her mom's address. That's how he finds her. Otherwise, there's no way this movie will end in thirty minutes.

Kyle stopping to pet the dog while Sarah gets them a hotel room is such a beautiful background moment.

Sad that even the shittiest '80s motel room is nicer than anything Kyle has ever seen.

AHHH, SHE CALLS HER MOM, this is the smart and appropriate thing to do, but there's no way this can end well for her mom.

I thought the scene was going to cut to her mom on the phone with a gun at her back (before the Terminator kills her), but she's talking to the Terminator mimicking her mother's voice and I... don't know what just happened, but pretty sure it isn't good for Sarah Connor's mom's survival. (Why they didn't go back in time and try to kill HER before she had Sarah... seems like there are so many ways to do this.)

LOL, you think Reese is going to be into food and instead he's into manufacturing explosives in the kitchen. Nice. What follows is Baby's First Improvised Weaponry Lesson.

"He'll find us, won't he?" "Probably." WELL MAYBE IF YOU HADN'T GIVEN SOMEONE YOUR ADDRESS AFTER HE TOLD YOU NOT TO, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN "LATER" RATHER THAN "SOONER", ughhhhhh.

Kyle's reaction when Sarah asks him about his previous lovers is HILARIOUS if you assume he's actually in love with John Connor. But this does answer the question of who the woman in the photo was: it was Sarah, he's been in love with Sarah the whole time (and now kinda embarassed/thrilled at the prospect of sleeping with his hero?)

I can't tell if Sarah genuinely thinks he's hot or if she just feels sorry that he's a virgin. I guess it doesn't really matter since they've been through hell together and sex is a valid way of coping. Also, while Kyle isn't as muscular as the Terminator, he's no slouch in the shirtless department--and he's not wearing a shirt in this scene.

Kyle's admission that he "disconnects" to avoid feeling pain just heightens the machine-man continuum even further...

Oh, my god, John totally knows that Kyle's going to be his dad, and that's why he gives them the picture of Sarah. SO AWKWARD TO BE SET UP BY YOUR SON.

This is the '80s so they can't just have casual sex, he has to be in love with her, and have ALWAYS been in love with her, because this is ROMANCE, and she's the heroine (otherwise it would be morally wrong??). I get it, although this trope hasn't aged well and seems vaguely stalker-ish, even though relatively little stalking was involved.

So he loves her, but Sarah never says she loves him... but she's stressed out and exhausted and she feels sorry for him and he's hot, wtf not?

Hey, he lets her top! That was unexpected and also kinda sweet.

What was the point of Sarah telling her mother if her mother never called back and if they were only going to be there for a day? Shouldn't she be suspicious that her mom never called back? IDIOT BALL.

Kyle hears the dog barking and knows what's up right away. You can see the "oh shit" look on his face.

YET ANOTHER CAR CHASE... except now they're in a truck and the Terminator's on a motorcycle. Oh, goody. And he makes her drive once she pulls out the explosives. Oh, good, an underground tunnel!

I don't understand why the Terminator doesn't shoot out the wheels on the truck. He keeps aiming for Sarah, and I know that's his mission, but... seems like it might be easier to disable the truck first? IDK.

Of course leaning out the window makes it easier for the Terminator to shoot Kyle... now that he's delivered his Sperm Packet from the Future, his role is done and he's toast.

That's also the first moment that Sarah really takes agency by swerving and crashing the car. I think up until this point, she's just kinda gone along with everything...? NOT A COINCIDENCE.

Oh, great, now he has a tractor-trailer. Full of gas. And you have explosions. This will end well.

Wow, the Terminator didn't kill the passenger in the truck after all. Why waste energy, I guess?

I don't understand why he goes for the tractor-trailer instead of.. I don't know, just walking over and strangling Sarah? He's a lot stronger than she is and she's trapped in a wreck. I don't understand it. That seems WAY like overkill. And also gives her time to get her bearings and escape with Kyle.

Kyle jumping into the dumpster is oddly appropriate, given how often dumpsters and trash appear in this movie.

Sarah breathes a sigh of relief WAYYY too soon after the truck goes up in flames.

WHYYYY is she going so close to the flames, that's so dumb, it must be so hot and toxic fumes, whyyyyy? (So they can be RIGHT THERE when the Terminator wakes up, that's why!)

This time Sarah's the one to break a window and unlock a door. Agency! Character development! Whatever you want to call it.

Can you really turn an automated factory on that easily? Shouldn't there be... passwords, or something? But I like that Kyle does it "so he can't track us" - so the EMFs interfere with the Terminator's abilities??

And of course, there's the irony that the smart machine from the future is destroyed by by the dumb machines of the past. Humanity's enemy is also its savior. (Can you imagine what would havehappened if the Terminator had been able to talk to them and convince them to kill the humans / figure out where they were?)

Hey, the Terminator busts down the door in its Final Form and does the EXACT SAME DOOR OPENING TRICK IT'S ALWAYS DONE.

Sarah pulls a chunk of shrapnel OUT OF HER OWN LEG. She gets to scream while she does it because she's female, but it's the foil to the other "repair/healing" we've seen - and a sign of her own transition/evolution.

Kyle's face wound mirrors that of the Terminator, AHHH I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE.

And of course the Terminator still isn't dead even after it's lost half its body and is just this metallic torso dragging itself across the ground with its arms. Because we're still not done yet. Both Sarah and the Terminator have leg wounds, so they're both crawling, I like it. EVEN MORE PARALLELS.

Oh, god, it's on a conveyor belt now. NIGHTMARE FUEL. And then some sort of ventilation shaft? Oh, god.

And she's able to press the button as it's strangling her and issue a snappy one-liner LIKE THE ACTION HERO SHE IS! And watch its red eye stare balefully at her the entire time.

Oh, and THEN the police show up and she's put on a stretcher and bundled away. Could be worse, Kyle's on a stretcher zipped up into a body bag.

CUT TO: Sarah driving a truck in the desert. A pregnant Sarah is narrating into a microphone a message/memoir for her unborn son. There's a German shepherd in the backseat. Sarah's wearing the same headband we've seen before in Kyle's photo of her. She's got a pistol in her lap that she handles coolly and calmly.

She's in Mexico, at a gas station full of chickens. She tells John she's worried about paradox, but he has to send Kyle. So John DOES know, and gave Kyle the photograph so he'd be primed to fall in love with Sarah, thus guaranteeing his existence. The German shepherd is a Very Good Dog.

Sarah's very blunt about the fact that she and Kyle only had a few hours together, but says "we loved a lifetime's worth" and I'm not sure that checks out, but okay. Maybe on Kyle's end? I feel like Sarah barely had time for any of this, and maybe some of it is retroactive, but... anyway, maybe it's a story she tells herself so she can live with it, especially since she may not be interested, open to, or willing to risk any more relationships in the future, given that she's a perpetual target.

While she's talking about Kyle, her face twists up and a kid snaps a photo with his Kodak camera, and claims if she doesn't pay for it, his father will beat him. She knows it's a scam but takes it anyway, talking him down to four dollars instead of five.

The kid takes the money and runs away, crying about a storm coming. Sarah sighs. "I know," she says, and puts on dark sunglasses as tumbleweeds roll and she drives away, waiting for the apocalypse, towards some mountains that look awfully early-CGIish.

Credits roll. Acknowledgment to the works of Harlan Ellison - that's cool.

Wow, okay. Well that was a ride.

Reading the Wiki: I like how James Cameron decided to cast Michael Biehn as Kyle Reese because he was famous at the time, even though he's nowhere near a household name compared to the film's other stars. O.J. Simpson was floated as a possible Terminator, irony. Harlan Ellison credit was added after he threatened to sue for infringment--oh.

Also, (male) critics talk about how the Terminator represents masculinity, and the ideal man is both machine and human? I guess I don't really see the Terminator as ideal masculinity, but that's a rant for another day...

Also: wtf happened to the iguana??

#Movie Reviews #fic ideas #terminator

10 notes · View notes

bakagamieru · 7 years

Text

American Assassin

Short Point:

Definitely worth a watch if you like action or if you’re the type who usually shies away from it because of the overly-simplistic themes that come with it.

Long Point:

I went to see this today because I find Dylan O’Brien to be pretty talented and wanted to check it out. I went into it kind of expecting to enjoy seeing him while cringing at the rest of the movie. Let’s just say that over-the-top machismo and so-called “patriotism” that involves demonizing other groups and restricting the constructive criticism of a nation are not my favorite themes.

I was pleasantly surprised though. Despite dealing with a plot that revolves around acts of terrorism and trying to stop them, the movie was actually a lot more nuanced than your regular, run-of-the-mill action/secret agent movie. I thought the subject matter was handled quite well.

I was also pleased that the movie had a good plot, decent dialogue, and overall good production. It had interesting action scenes that always felt important and never like filler, and the ending wasn’t exactly a shocker but also wasn’t something that I would say I’d seen coming. It was something I don’t think I’ve ever seen on-screen before.

The one place the movie really could have improved was if it was a bit better at characterization. It moves fast and that’s an advantage in a lot of ways, but at times it felt like the movie wanted me to understand a character or a relationship when it hadn’t actually fleshed those things out before.

The characters that were set up are interesting enough that I’d love to see them get developed properly in the future. The action part of it was phenomenal really and I can’t believe I actually left the theater so interested in seeing more like it.

I’m not exactly a movie aficionado, but it feels like something special and I hope that it gets a chance to grow into itself as a franchise.

Spoiler Point:

Pros:

Mitch, the protagonist, is a likable character. He’s way too single-minded and has scary anger issues, but there are several times where he shows more compassion for people he has little reason to care about than other characters show for people they actually have a relationship with.

Anytime Mitch gets set loose (AKA runs away) to do things on his own, things get seriously awesome. I honestly would have loved watching him the whole time without the CIA involved.

The snarky brand of humor in this is just a bit different from what you find in most action movies I think. It wasn’t super prevalent, but it popped up occasionally and was a breath of life every time.

The action was extremely good in this. I was cringing quite a bit because the stuff is so inventive and visceral, but it was also simplistic rather than overly-complicated and was kept well-grounded in realism.

At the end, they show a (I assume probably somewhat inaccurate) portrait of what it would be like if a nuclear weapon went off underwater near a helicopter and a Navy fleet. It is extremely awesome.

The plot of the movie as a whole is pretty familiar except that it’s just enough shades of different that it feels fascinating and refreshing.

I really liked the dynamic between Mitch and the villain Ghost.

I also really liked the role that the female Iranian agent played. It was far more complex than it first seemed and did her credit. Rather than just being a “hot foreign girl” or an “evil Middle-Eastern spy”, she was a person with her own agenda who ultimately ended up being a good guy.

The movie played both sides way more than I thought a film named “American Assassin” would. Near the beginning with the recruitment video showing the pain of Middle-Eastern people, with the Iranian officials listing off the US government’s transgressions, with scenes of normal Iranian citizens and children living just like Americans do, with Ghost claiming that Hurley was more of a monster than the people he claims are “beasts”, and with the Iranian girl’s family having fought against the bad guys, the movie made it clear that the Iranians were not all of one mind and that they weren’t inherently bad guys.

Cons:

The director has a hard-on for inappropriately long zoom-ins. Also, occasionally, for too-monotonous alternating full face shots during conversations.

Michael Keaton’s character (Hurley) is probably crazy, which is a pro except that I think the movie meant for him to be the hardass-but-probably-caring-deeply-underneath mentor, but he didn’t really do much to earn that.

Taylor Kitsch’s accent kind of threw me off. I guess I knew he was American, but I just don’t expect a drawl to come out of his mouth and it was jarring every time I heard it.

I sympathized with Taylor Kitsch’s bad guy (Ghost) more than Michael Keaton’s mentor? I think this might have been different if they fleshed out Ghost’s past with Hurley more concretely. For all we know Hurley is the true asshole who screwed Ghost over.

Unfortunately I don’t think Ghost will be making a reappearance. He was kind of stabbed through the throat on a boat that was then sucked into a vortex at the middle of a nuclear explosion. Not really a situation that can be finagled so that he survives. I really wouldn’t mind if he came back inexplicably anyway.

This is sort of a pro because it became funny at a certain point, but apparently everyone Mitch meets knows about his traumatic past and they all poke at his emotions with a stick (generally unprompted) instead of being decent.

Mitch is generally painted as driven, angry, and traumatized, except for when he’s rebellious, snarky, and vulnerable. There’s probably a way to make this all seem consistent in the characterization, but the movie didn’t quite find it. I don’t think it was an acting issue. I think it was a script issue.

Even though the cons look longer, keep in mind that the bullet points are more descriptive and that a lot of the cons are actually pros in a way.

The upshot of this is that 1) Michael Keaton should be a crazy asshole, 2) Mitch should be rogue and should have only worked with the CIA to get training for his own purposes, and 3) Mitch should be emotionally seeking someone (an actual decent human being) to connect with, whether he’s doing this consciously or not. Those things would basically fix the characterization issues.

I mean, the first movie wasn’t explicit enough to make me sure that that WASN’T what they were going for. But I’m not sure it was what they were going for either.

The rest of it was so good that if the characterization was fixed, it would be incredible.

#american assassin #dylan o'brien #michael keaton #movie review #bakagamieru

15 notes · View notes

blog575738202 · 7 years

Link

WASHINGTON ― As President Donald Trump entered his second 100 days in office, he described an example of his common-sense leadership: New U.S. Navy aircraft carriers, he decreed, would not use high-tech electromagnetic catapults that only “Albert Einstein” could understand, but would go back to old-fashioned steam power.

“You’re going to goddamned steam,” he told Time magazine.

So what did the Navy do with this plain-spoken directive from the commander-in-chief?

When Trump visited Norfolk, Virginia, some weeks later to commission the new supercarrier Gerald Ford, she was outfitted with high-tech electromagnetic catapults to launch planes off the deck. So will every other new carrier in that class. In fact, the Navy didn’t even bother asking for a study to explore the costs of retrofitting the Gerald Ford to use steam.

It seemed less an act of defiance than an assumption that Trump couldn’t possibly be serious about ordering an expensive and time-consuming redesign of a major weapons system with very little background knowledge ― and in the context of a media interview.

“They ignored it,” Douglas Brinkley, a presidential historian at Rice University, said with a laugh. “The United States federal government is now just shrugging at and ignoring some of his statements.”

It’s a shrug that is becoming more common in the Trump presidency. Agency heads and lower-level bureaucrats appear to have concluded that the combination of Trump’s impulsive nature and short attention span means that the president’s sometimes random commands can – and should – be safely ignored.

“His attention span is so short that what he said one hour, he doesn’t even remember the next hour,” Brinkley said.

That “ignore-what-he-says” attitude may become particularly important as the U.S. deals with a nuclear-armed North Korea. Just hours after Trump’s ad-libbed “fire and fury” statement on Tuesday appeared to escalate the conflict, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson gave far more measured remarks to reporters traveling with him.

“We have a very active, ongoing diplomatic effort, most of which is behind the scenes because that’s where diplomacy is most effective, Tillerson said Wednesday as his Air Force jet flew homeward high over the Indonesian island of Borneo. “I think what the president was just reaffirming is the United States has the capability to fully defend itself with any attack, will defend our allies, and we will do so. So the American people should sleep well at night.”

About That Transgender Military Ban...

Just six months into his term, Trump is finding resistance to his ideas not only from a Republican Congress ― which is ignoring his insistence that it return immediately to a health care bill before doing anything else ― but from some of his own executive agencies.

“I’m not talking about so-called ‘deep state’ bureaucrats,” wrote Jack Goldsmith, a former Justice Department and Defense Department lawyer in the George W. Bush administration. “I’m talking about senior officials in the Justice Department and the military and intelligence and foreign affairs agencies. And they are not just ignoring or contradicting him in private. They are doing so in public for all the world to see.”

Trump’s White House did not respond to queries about the aircraft catapult, or more generally about administration officials ignoring his directives.

But examples are rapidly accumulating.

Trump frequently calls the idea of Russian interference on his behalf in last year’s election a “hoax” invented by Democrats. Leaders of the U.S. intelligence agencies, including those appointed by Trump, like Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and CIA Director Mike Pompeo, say the intelligence community’s analysis that Russia tried to help Trump win is correct.

Trump’s attorney general, Jeff Sessions, angered the president by recusing himself from the FBI’s investigation of possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. More recently, Sessions has resisted Trump’s public ridicule and shaming, and has refused to resign his post – and in so doing has protected the special counsel now running that investigation, as Trump cannot independently fire that person.

Sessions’ deputy, Rod Rosenstein, rejected Trump’s recent call for a renewed investigation into Trump’s Democratic opponent last year, Hillary Clinton. “The president has not directed us to investigate particular people. That wouldn’t be right. That’s not the way we operate,” Rosenstein told Fox News.

Vice President Mike Pence, United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley and Defense Secretary James Mattis frequently deliver foreign policy statements at odds with Trump’s comments. Pence and Mattis guaranteed NATO allies of the United States’ commitment to the treaty obligations, even while Trump was projecting ambivalence. Haley reaffirmed U.S. commitment to a two-state solution in Israel and Palestine right after Trump said he didn’t really care how it sorted out.

Mattis’ Defense Department, meanwhile, seems to have taken the lead in flouting Trump. Mattis personally said torture doesn’t work, although Trump insisted it does. He stated that the United States would not be seizing oil from Iraq, even after Trump suggested it was still an option.

More recently, apart from disregarding the presidential command for steam, Mattis’ Pentagon has ignored Trump’s tweets last month banning transgender people from the military. “What you saw in the form of a tweet was representative of an announcement. That doesn’t result in any immediate policy changes for us. We will await formal direction,” said Pentagon spokesman and Navy Capt. Jeff Davis.

Coast Guard Commandant Paul Zukunft went one step further, saying recently he would not carry out the directive, period. “Very small numbers, but all of them are doing meaningful Coast Guard work today,” he said.

Norm Ornstein, with the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute, said experts in the various agencies are left with no choice when presented with unreasonable demands. “We’ve never had a president like this. We’ve never had a president with no knowledge base. Who’s not interested in developing a knowledge base. With no impulse control,” Ornstein said.

In the case of the aircraft carrier catapult, the electromagnetic version has been under development for years. It can launch everything from lightweight drones to heavy fighters while adjusting the acceleration force applied, easing stress on the airframes. It will require far less maintenance than steam, which the Navy has relied on for more than a half-century.

Trump did not appear to understand these benefits when he spoke to Time’s reporters. “Digital. They have digital,” he said, apparently describing how the electromagnetic catapult is computer-controlled. “What is digital? And it’s very complicated. You have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out.”

Angry Presidents, ‘Crazy Orders’

Trump, of course, is not the first president to deal with an executive branch that does not bend to his every whim.

Harry Truman reportedly laughed that successor Dwight Eisenhower, who during World War II had commanded all Allied forces in northwest Europe, was used to people following his orders, but that’s not how it worked with the presidency.

More recently, and perhaps more on point, Richard Nixon would routinely order his top White House aides to carry out bizarre and sometimes illegal orders, including at one point the bombing of the Brookings Institution to create a diversion allowing the theft of damaging documents. The aides, including some who history painted as villains following the Watergate investigation, protected the country by ignoring those orders, Ornstein said.

“It’s not the first time we’ve seen crazy orders given by a president angry that things didn’t work the way the president wanted them to,” Ornstein said.

Brinkley, the presidential historian, said Nixon’s top aides and Cabinet members actually took things a step further in his final year, as the Watergate probe and impeachment drew closer. Worried about his mental stability and his alcohol consumption, they essentially set up a system that required sign-off by the chief of staff and the defense secretary for the authorization of military strikes, he said.

“It was sort of extralegal,” Brinkley said, but operated on the premise that the United States was too important to let Nixon destroy it. “The whole issue became containing Nixon.”

Brinkley said Trump’s presidency has close parallels with the Nixon era. Now, like then, career public servants and military leaders appear to be siding with the law and the Constitution against Trump’s impulses.

“His tweets are just being seen as a weird aberration of popular culture, not to be taken as directives,” Brinkley said. “It’s unfortunate when a president behaves that way, but anyone in the military and the CIA have to understand what’s rational and what’s not rational. They’ve got to keep the world’s largest economy and the only real superpower safe.”

#Huffington Post

3 notes · View notes

goldeagleprice · 4 years

Text

Nobel Laureates on Indian Stamps – I

We all have heard of Nobel Prizes and the Nobel Prize winners too. Winning a Nobel Prize is a life-changing honour. Whether the laureate is an internationally known figure or a scientist or an activist plucked from obscurity, the award brings with it worldwide recognition that highlights one’s life work and provides the funds to continue and further the mission. In this blog we will trace the Nobel Laureates on Indian Stamps. But before we go into it, let’s know more about Alfred Nobel and how and why he started these awards in first place.

It all started when a French newspaper printed about Nobel’s death by mistake. In April 1888, Alfred Nobel read about his own death and read a headline that made him ponder over his legacy. The newspaper read stuff like, “The merchant of death is dead,” and described him as a person who “became rich by finding ways to kill more people faster than ever before.” These words or opinions about him made Alfred ponder over the public opinion that he would be leaving behind. Alfred Nobel, the man who invented dynamites, wanted to be forever tied to humankind’s highest achievements, and not its destructive potential.

In 1895, Nobel sat down in a club in Paris and, in handwritten Swedish with no help from a lawyer, penned a four-page document that would become one of history’s most notable last will and testaments!

He left 31 million Swedish kroner (equivalent to about $250 million today), the bulk of his estate, to be invested and the interest from which given “in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind.” Four random gentlemen at the club were asked to witness the document, which now resides in a vault at the Nobel Foundation in Stockholm, and the rest is history!

The following year Alfred Nobel died for real and with his will became a man who was no longer linked to death and destruction, but would forever be associated with progress, peace and the very best in human achievements…Such an inspiring story of introspection and determination.

Since the establishment of the Nobel Trust in 1901, a total of approximately 590 prizes to 935 laureates (as of 2018) have been awarded. As the title of the blog suggests, we are going to discuss the Nobel Laureates that are depicted on Indian Stamps. We will be looking at stamps in an order as issued by the Postal Department of India and not by the year in which the Laureates received the award.

Rabindranath Tagore: Nobel Prize in Literature 1913

Rabindranath Tagore, one of the world’s most prominent poets, was the first non-European and first Indian to be bestowed the prestigious Nobel Prize in 1913! Often hailed as “The bard of Bengal” or “The poet of the poets”, Tagore was a person who has expertise in significant numbers of subject areas. He reshaped Bengali literature, music, as well as Indian art with contextual modernism in the twentieth century. He was the most admired Indian writer who introduced India’s rich cultural heritage to the West. At the age of 16, he released his first substantial poems under the pseudonym Bhanusimha. In 1882, he wrote one of his acclaimed poems, Nirjharer Swapnabhanga. His major work consists of Manasi, Galpaguchha, Naivedya, Khaya, and Gitanjali.

His novels, stories, songs, dance-dramas, and essays spoke on topics ranging from political to personal stories and opinions. His compositions were chosen by two nations as national anthems: India’s Jana Gana Mana and Bangladesh’s Amar Shonar Bangla.

Even today, decades after his death, this saint-like man, lives through his works in the hearts of the people of India who are forever indebted to him for enriching their heritage. Many stamps were issued honouring Rabindranath Tagore in India and across the world.

The first Indian one was a 12 anna stamp issued in October 1952. On 8th May 1987, a lovely 2-rupee stamp was issued featuring his self-portrait and in May 2011, a beautiful miniature sheet was issued.

Martin Luther King: Nobel Peace Prize 1964

Martin Luther King Jr. was a Baptist minister and social activist, who led the Civil Rights Movement in the United States from the mid-1950s until his assassination on 4th April in 1968. He played an important role in ending the legal segregation of African-American citizens in the South and other areas of the United States, as well as the creation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Among several other honours, he received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964. Martin Luther King Jr. continues to be remembered as one of the most lauded African-American leaders in history, often remembered by his 1963 speech, “I Have a Dream.”

He was inspired by Mahatma Gandhi and his nonviolent means. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day (officially Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr.) is an American federal holiday since 1986, marking the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. It is observed on the third Monday of January each year, which is around King’s birthday, January 15.

Many stamps were issued honouring Martin Luther King in India and across the world. Portrayed in the image above is a 20 paise stamp issued in 1969 which depicts a portrait of Martin Luther King.

Bertrand Russell: Nobel Prize in Literature 1950

As a philosopher, mathematician, educator, social critic and political activist, Bertrand Russell authored over 70 books and thousands of essays and letters addressing a myriad of topics. Awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950 “in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought”, Russell was a fine literary stylist, one of the foremost logicians ever, and a person known to have fought for improving the lives of men and women.

Bertrand Russell is credited with being one of the founders of what is now known as analytic philosophy. It is a view that emphasizes the importance of both empirical observation and logical analysis. Russell’s contributions to logic, epistemology, and the philosophy of mathematics established him as one of the foremost philosophers of the 20th century. His philosophical essay “On Denoting” has been considered a “paradigm of philosophy”.

To the general public, however, he was best known as a campaigner for peace and as a popular writer on social, political, and moral subjects. He was jailed twice, one in in 1918 for anti-war views and in 1961 for his anti-nuclear weapons stance. Active as a political and social critic until his end, Russell died in 1970 at the age of 97.

Many stamps were issued honouring B. Russell in India and across the world. A 1 Re. 45 Paise stamp was issued by India Post on 16th of October 1972 on the birth centenary of Bertrand Russell.

Guglielmo Marconi: Nobel Prize in Physics 1909

Guglielmo Marconi was an Italian inventor and engineer who developed, demonstrated and marketed the first successful long-distance wireless telegraph and on 12th December 1901 broadcasted the first transatlantic radio signal! He is known for his pioneering work on long-distance radio transmission, development of Marconi’s law, and a radio telegraph system. He is also credited as the inventor of radio.

In 1909 he shared the Nobel Prize in Physics for his radio work. Interestingly, in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, Marconi freely admitted that he didn’t really understand how his invention worked! Whether he understood the enormity or the working logic of his invention or not we surely are thankful to him.

Since its invention, radio has played an integral role in mass communications and technological developments all through the centuries. Despite being over 100 years old, the radio is popular and educates people all over the world.

Did you know that the 700 survivors of Titanic were rescued because of “Marconi’s Men”!

As shipping companies realized the radio telegraph’s usefulness for passenger communication, navigation reports and distress signals, Marconi Company radios—operated by trained cadres of “Marconi Men”—became standard equipment. When RMS Titanic struck an iceberg on April 14, 1912, its Marconi operator was able to summon RMS Carpathia to the scene to pick up 700 survivors.

Many stamps were issued honouring Guglielmo Marconi in India and across the world. A Rs.2 postage stamp was issued by India Post in 1974 with Marconi’s portrait on it.

Albert Einstein: Nobel Prize in Physics 1921

How many times have we tried to understand one of the world’s greatest equations – E=mc2! They say if you’ve got Einstein’s brains then you’re out of this world. This man changed the course of science with his most popular mass-energy equation.

Rumpled hair elderly professor, Albert Einstein was not only a visionary physicist but also a pre-eminent scientist whose theories and discoveries profoundly affected the way people viewed the universe. He developed the general theory of relativity, one of the two pillars of modern physics apart from quantum physics. Einstein’s work is also known for its influence on the philosophy of science.

In 1905, in what’s been called Einstein’s ‘miracle year’, he publishes in his spare time four visionary papers. The first paper answered the age old question, ‘what is light’. In another paper the 26 year old, discovers something what now we take for granted, the existence of atoms. The third paper ascertains his most famous equation E=MC square and his last paper on special relativity certainly blows all minds.

In 1915, Einstein completed his paper on General Theory of Relativity, and brought to the world a fuller understanding of the interaction of space, time and gravity. He received the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics for his “services to theoretical physics”, in particular his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect, a vital step in the evolution of quantum theory.

Many stamps were issued honouring Albert Einstein in India and across the world. India Post on 14th March, 1979 issued a horizontal stamp on Einstein’s birth centenary depicting his portrait.

Mother Teresa: Nobel Peace Prize 1979

A figure wearing a blue bordered coarse cotton white sari walking on the streets of Calcutta (Kolkata) helping people, held a deep affection not only with the people of Calcutta but also with the whole nation. This person was none other than Mother Teresa.

Mother Teresa was born in Albania on 26th August 1910. At the early age, she cherished the desire to- ‘Go out and give the love of Christ’. The Irish Order of the Sister of Loreto inspired her at the age of 18. This desire brought her to India on 6th January 1989 and she began teaching geography at St Mary’s High School in Calcutta.

In 18th August 1948, Mother Teresa left the church and dedicated her life to helping the poor in the bustling streets of Calcutta. In 1950 she founded Missionaries of Charity in Calcutta. Today this charity consists of 1800 nuns, 250 brothers and thousands of lay co-workers who serve the sick and the poor in over 30 countries worldwide.

Her enormous compassionate work evoked worldwide recognition. Due to this she has received many awards like Padmashree, the Magsaysay Award, Pope John XXIII Peace Prize, John.F.Kennedy International Award, Jawaharlal Nehru Award for International Understanding, Nobel Peace Prize, etc.

Many stamps were issued honouring Mother Teresa in India and across the world. To commemorate this Nobel Laureate, India Post issued a 30 paisa postage stamp in 1980.

Robert Koch: Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1905

Heinrich Hermann Robert Koch was a German physician and microbiologist who was awarded the Nobel Prize for discovering the causative agents of infectious diseases. As one of the main founders of modern bacteriology, he identified the specific causative agents of tuberculosis, cholera, and anthrax and gave experimental support for the concept of infectious disease.

Koch created and improved laboratory technologies and techniques in the field of microbiology, and made key discoveries in public health. His research led to the creation of Koch’s postulates, a series of four generalized principles linking specific micro-organisms to specific diseases that remain today the “gold standard” in medical microbiology. Koch received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1905 for his research on tuberculosis. Tuberculosis (TB) is a serious illness affecting the tissues especially in the lungs. Robert Koch, who had conducted a range of important studies on illnesses caused by microorganisms, discovered and described the TB bacterium in 1882.

Furthering his research with microbiology, in 1883, Koch travelled to Egypt and India to investigate the causes of cholera and discovered the cholera bacillus. He tracked its transmission by way of polluted water and pointed out that it could be controlled by keeping drinking water clean.

Recipient of many accolades and honours, Koch was awarded The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1905. By his achievements in this field, Koch may be considered to be the father of the scientific study of tuberculosis. On the occasion of the centenary of Koch’s discovery of the tubercle bacillus, India Post issued a 35 Paise commemorative postage stamp in 1982.

We have so many more Nobel laureates that have been commemorated on Indian stamps. We will discuss about them in our future blogs. Stay tuned to know more about the Nobel Prizes and prize winners as well! Hope you enjoyed this blog…

The post Nobel Laureates on Indian Stamps – I appeared first on Blog | Mintage World.

#Precious Metals

0 notes

newstfionline · 7 years

Text

The science of spying: how the CIA secretly recruits academics

The Guardian, 10 October 2017

The CIA agent tapped softly on the hotel room door. After the keynote speeches, panel discussions and dinner, the conference attendees had retired for the night. Audio and visual surveillance of the room showed that the nuclear scientist’s minders from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps were sleeping, but he was still awake. Sure enough, he opened the door, alone.

According to a person familiar with this encounter, which took place about a decade ago, the agency had been preparing it for months. Through a business front, it had funded and staged the conference at an unsuspecting foreign centre of scientific research, invited speakers and guests, and planted operatives among the kitchen workers and other staff, just so it could entice the nuclear expert out of Iran, separate him for a few minutes from his guards, and pitch him one-to-one. A last-minute snag had almost derailed the plans: the target switched hotels because the conference’s preferred hotel cost $75 more than his superiors in Iran were willing to spend.

To show his sincerity and goodwill, the agent put his hand over his heart. “Salam habibi,” he said. “I’m from the CIA, and I want you to board a plane with me to the United States.” The agent could read the Iranian’s reactions on his face: a mix of shock, fear and curiosity. From prior experience with defectors, he knew the thousand questions flooding the scientist’s mind: What about my family? How will you protect me? Where will I live? How will I support myself? How do I get a visa? Do I have time to pack? What happens if I say no?

The scientist started to ask one, but the agent interrupted him. “First, get the ice bucket,” he said.

“Why?”

“If any of your guards wake up, you can tell them you’re going to get some ice.”

In perhaps its most audacious and elaborate incursion into academia, the CIA has secretly spent millions of dollars staging scientific conferences around the world. Its purpose was to lure Iranian nuclear scientists out of their homeland and into an accessible setting, where its intelligence officers could approach them individually and press them to defect. In other words, the agency sought to delay Iran’s development of nuclear weapons by exploiting academia’s internationalism, and pulling off a mass deception on the institutions that hosted the conferences and the professors who attended and spoke at them. The people attending the conference had no idea they were acting in a drama that simulated reality but was stage-managed from afar. Whether the national security mission justified this manipulation of the professoriate can be debated, but there’s little doubt that most academics would have balked at being dupes in a CIA scheme.

More than any other academic arena, conferences lend themselves to espionage. Assisted by globalisation, these social and intellectual rituals have become ubiquitous. Like stops on the world golf or tennis circuits, they sprout up wherever the climate is favourable, and draw a jet-setting crowd. What they lack in prize money, they make up for in prestige. Although researchers chat electronically all the time, virtual meetings are no substitute for getting together with peers, networking for jobs, checking out the latest gadgets and delivering papers that will later be published in volumes of conference proceedings. “The attraction of the conference circuit,” English novelist David Lodge wrote in Small World, his 1984 send-up of academic life, is that “it’s a way of converting work into play, combining professionalism with tourism, and all at someone else’s expense. Write a paper and see the world!”

The importance of a conference may be measured not just by the number of Nobel prize-winners or Oxford dons it attracts, but by the number of spies. US and foreign intelligence officers flock to conferences for the same reason that army recruiters concentrate on low-income neighbourhoods: they make the best hunting grounds. While a university campus might have only one or two professors of interest to an intelligence service, the right conference--on drone technology, perhaps, or Isis--could have dozens.

“Every intelligence service in the world works conferences, sponsors conferences, and looks for ways to get people to conferences,” said one former CIA operative.

“Recruitment is a long process of seduction,” says Mark Galeotti, senior researcher at the Institute of International Relations Prague and former special advisor to the British foreign office. “The first stage is to arrange to be at the same workshop as a target. Even if you just exchange banalities, the next time you can say, ‘Did I see you in Istanbul?’”

The FBI warned American academics in 2011 to be cautious about conferences, citing this scenario: “A researcher receives an unsolicited invitation to submit a paper for an international conference. She submits a paper and it is accepted. At the conference, the hosts ask for a copy of her presentation. The hosts hook a thumb drive to her laptop, and unbeknownst to her, download every file and data source from her computer.”

The FBI and CIA swarm conferences, too. At gatherings in the US, says one former FBI agent, “foreign intelligence officers try to collect Americans; we try to collect them”. The CIA is involved with conferences in various ways: it sends officers to them; it hosts them through front companies in the Washington area, so that the intelligence community can tap academic wisdom; and it mounts sham conferences to reach potential defectors from hostile countries.

The CIA monitors upcoming conferences worldwide and identifies those of interest. Suppose there is an international conference in Pakistan on centrifuge technology: the CIA would send its own agent undercover, or enlist a professor who might be going anyway to report back. If it learns that an Iranian nuclear scientist attended the conference, it might peg him for possible recruitment at the next year’s meeting.

Intelligence from academic conferences can shape policy. It helped persuade the George W Bush administration--mistakenly, as it turned out--that Saddam Hussein was still developing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. “What our spies and informants were noticing, of course, was that Iraqi scientists specialising in chemistry, biology and, to a lesser extent, nuclear power kept showing up at international symposia,” former CIA counterterrorism officer John Kiriakou wrote in a 2009 memoir. “They presented papers, listened to the presentation of others, took copious notes, and returned to Jordan, where they could transmit overland back to Iraq.”

Some of those spies may have drawn the wrong conclusions because they lacked advanced degrees in chemistry, biology or nuclear power. Without expertise, agents might misunderstand the subject matter, or be exposed as frauds. At conferences hosted by the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna on topics such as isotope hydrology and fusion energy, “there are probably more intelligence officers roaming the hallways than actual scientists,” says Gene Coyle, who worked for the CIA from 1976 to 2006. “There’s one slight problem. If you’re going to send a CIA guy to attend one of these conferences, he has to talk the talk. It’s hard to send a history major. ‘Yes, I have a PhD in plasma physics.’ Also, that’s a very small world. If you say you’re from the Fermi Institute in Chicago, they say: ‘You must know Bob, Fred, Susie.’”

Instead, Coyle says, the agency may enlist a suitable professor through the National Resources Division, its clandestine domestic service, which has a “working relationship” with a number of scientists. “If they see a conference in Vienna, they might say, ‘Professor Smith, that would seem natural for you to attend.’”

“Smith might say: ‘I am attending it, I’ll let you know who I chatted with. If I bump into an Iranian, I won’t run in the opposite direction.’ If he says, ‘I’d love to attend, but the travel budget at the university is pretty tight,’ the CIA or FBI might say: ‘Well, you know, we might be able to take care of your ticket, in economy class.’”

A spy’s courtship of a professor often begins with a seemingly random encounter--known in the trade as a “bump”--at an academic conference. One former CIA operative overseas explained to me how it works. I’ll call him “R”.

“I recruited a ton of people at conferences,” R told me. “I was good at it, and it’s not that hard.”

Between assignments, he would peruse a list of upcoming conferences, pick one, and identify a scientist of interest who seemed likely to attend after having spoken at least twice at the same event in previous years. R would assign trainees at the CIA and National Security Agency to develop a profile of the target--where they had gone to college, who their instructors were, and so on. Then he would cable headquarters, asking for travel funding. The trick was to make the cable persuasive enough to score the expense money, but not so compelling that other agents who read it, and were based closer to the conference, would try to go after the same target.

Next he developed his cover--typically, as a businessman. He invented a company name, built an off-the-shelf website and printed business cards. He created billing, phone and credit card records for the nonexistent company. For his name, he chose one of his seven aliases.

R was no scientist. He couldn’t drop in a line about the Riemann hypothesis as an icebreaker. Instead, figuring that most scientists are socially awkward introverts, he would sidle up to the target at the edge of the conference’s get-together session and say, “Do you hate crowds as much as I do?” Then he would walk away. “The bump is fleeting,” R said. “You just register your face in their mind.” No one else should notice the bump. It’s a rookie mistake to approach a target in front of other people who might be minders assigned by the professor’s own country. The minders would report the conversation, compromising the target’s security and making them unwilling or unable to entertain further overtures.

For the rest of the conference, R would “run around like crazy”, bumping into the scientist at every opportunity. With each contact, called “time on target” in CIA jargon and counted in his job-performance metrics, he insinuated himself into the professor’s affections. For instance, having done his homework, R would say he had read a wonderful article on such-and-such topic but couldn’t remember the author’s name. “That was me,” the scientist would say, blushing.

After a couple of days, R would invite the scientist to lunch or dinner and make his pitch: his company was interested in the scientist’s field, and would like to support their work. “Every academic I have ever met is constantly trying to figure how to get grants to continue his research. That’s all they talk about,” he explained. They would agree on a specific project, and the price, which varied by the scientist’s country: “$1,000 to $5,000 for a Pakistani. Korea is more.” Once the CIA pays a foreign professor, even if they are unaware at first of the funding source, it controls them, because exposure of the relationship might imperil their career or even their life in their native country.

At one 2005 conference in Paris that he anticipated would be a “perfect watering hole for visiting rogue-state weapons scientists”, Jones recalled, his heart sank as he glanced across the room and saw two CIA agents (who were themselves professors). He avoided their line of sight while he roamed the gathering, eyeballing nametags and trawling for “people who might make good sources”, ideally from North Korea, Iran, Libya, Russia or China.

“I’m surprised there’s so much open intelligence presence at these conferences,” Karsten Geier said. “There are so many people running around from so many acronyms.” Geier, head of cybersecurity policy for the German foreign office, and I were chatting at the Sixth Annual International Conference on Cyber Engagement, held in April 2016 at Georgetown University in Washington, DC. The religious art, stained-glass windows and classical quotations lining Gaston Hall enveloped the directors of the NSA and the FBI like an elaborate disguise as they gave keynote addresses on combating one of the most daunting challenges of the 21st century: cyberattacks.

The NSA’s former top codebreaker spoke, as did the ex-chairman of the National Intelligence Council, the deputy director of Italy’s security department, and the director of a centre that does classified research for Swedish intelligence. The name tags that almost all of the 700 attendees wore showed that they worked for the US government, foreign embassies, intelligence contractors or vendors of cyber-related products, or they taught at universities.

Perhaps not all of the intelligence presence was open. Officially, 40 nations--from Brazil to Mauritius, Serbia to Sri Lanka--were represented at the conference, but not Russia. Yet, hovering in the rear of the balcony, a slender young man carrying a briefcase listened to the panels. No name tag adorned his lapel. I approached him, introduced myself, and asked his name. “Alexander,” he said, and, after a pause, “Belousov.”

“How do you like the conference?”

“No,” he said, trying to ward off further inquiries. “I am from Russian embassy. I don’t have any opinions. I would like to know, that’s all.”

I proffered a business card, and requested his, in vain. “I am here only a month. My cards are still being produced.”

I persisted, asking about his job at the embassy. (A check of a diplomatic directory showed him as a “second secretary”.) He looked at his watch. “I am sorry. I must go.”

When the CIA wants Prof John Booth’s opinion, it phones him to find out if he is available to speak at a conference. But the agency’s name is nowhere to be found on the conference’s formal invitation and agenda, which invariably list a Washington-area contractor as the sponsor.

By hiding its role, the CIA makes it easier for scholars to share their insights. They take credit for their presentations on their CV without disclosing that they consulted for the CIA, which might alienate some academic colleagues, as well as the countries where they conduct their research.

An emeritus professor of political science at the University of North Texas, Booth specialises in studying Latin America, a region where history has taught officials to be wary of the CIA. “If you were intending to return to Latin America, it was very important that your CV not reflect” these kinds of presentations, Booth told me in March 2016. “When you go to one of these conferences, if there are intelligence or defence agency principals there, it’s invisible on your CV. It provides a fig leaf for participants. There’s still some bias in academia against this. I don’t go around in Latin American studies meetings saying I spent time at a conference run by the CIA.”

The CIA arranges conferences on foreign policy issues so that its analysts, who are often immersed in classified details, can learn from scholars who understand the big picture and are familiar with publicly available sources. Participating professors are generally paid a $1,000 honorarium, plus expenses. With scholarly presentations followed by questions and answers, the sessions are like those at any academic meeting, except that many attendees--presumably, CIA analysts--wear name tags with only their first names.

Of 10 intelligence agency conferences that Booth attended over the years--most recently a 2015 session about a wave of Central American refugee children pouring into the US--the CIA and Office of the Director of National Intelligence [ODNI] ran only one or two directly. The rest were outsourced to Centra Technology Inc, the leader of a growing industry of intermediaries in the Washington area--”cutouts” in espionage parlance--that run conferences for the CIA.

The CIA supplies Centra with funding and a list of people to invite, who gather in Centra’s Conference Center in Arlington, Virginia. It’s “an ideal setting for our clients’ conferences, meetings, games, and collaborative activities,” according to Centra’s website.

“If you know anything, when you see Centra, you know it’s likely to be CIA or ODNI,” said Robert Jervis, a Columbia University professor of international politics and longtime CIA consultant. “They do feel that for some academics thin cover is useful.”

Established in 1997, Centra has received more than $200m in government contracts, including $40m from the CIA for administrative support, such as compiling and redacting classified cables and documents for the five-year Senate Intelligence Committee study of the agency’s torture programme. In 2015, its executive ranks teemed with former intelligence officials. Founder and chief executive Harold Rosenbaum was a science and technology adviser to the CIA. Senior vice president Rick Bogusky headed the Korea division at the Defense Intelligence Agency. Vice president for research James Harris managed analytic programmes at the CIA for 22 years. Peggy Lyons, director of global access, was a longtime CIA manager and officer with several tours in East Asia. David Kanin, Centra analytic director, spent 31 years as a CIA analyst.

Like Booth, Indiana University political scientist Sumit Ganguly has spoken at several Centra conferences. “Anybody who works with Centra knows they’re in effect working for the US government,” he says. “If it said CIA, there are others who would fret about it. I make no bones about it to my colleagues. If it sticks in their craw, it’s their tough luck. I am an American citizen. I feel I should proffer the best possible advice to my government.”

Another political scientist, who has given four presentations for Centra, said he was told that it represented unnamed “clients”. He didn’t realise the clients were US intelligence agencies until he noticed audience members with first-name-only name tags. He later ran into one or two of the same people at an academic conference. They weren’t wearing name tags and weren’t listed in the programme.

Centra strives to mask its CIA connections. It removed its executives’ biographies from its website in 2015. The “featured customers” listed there include the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, the Army and 16 other branches of the federal government--but not the CIA. When I phoned Rosenbaum and asked him about Centra holding conferences for the CIA, he said: “You’re calling the wrong person. We have nothing to do with that.” And then he hung up.

I dropped by Centra’s offices on the fifth floor of a building in Burlington, Massachusetts, a northern suburb of Boston. The sign-in sheet asked visitors for their citizenship and “type of visit”: classified or not. The receptionist fetched human resources director Dianne Colpitts. She politely heard me out, checked with Rosenbaum, and told me that Centra wouldn’t comment. “To be frank,” she said, “our customers prefer us not to talk to the media.”

For Iranian academics escaping to the west, academic conferences are a modern-day underground railroad. The CIA has taken full advantage of this vulnerability. Beginning under President George W Bush, the US government had “endless money” for covert efforts to delay Iran’s development of nuclear weapons, the Institute for Science and International Security’s David Albright told me. One programme was the CIA’s Operation Brain Drain, which sought to spur top Iranian nuclear scientists to defect.

Because it was hard to approach the scientists in Iran, the CIA enticed them to conferences in friendly or neutral countries, a former intelligence officer told me. In consultation with Israel, the agency would choose a prospect. Then it would set up a conference at a prestigious scientific institute through a cutout, typically a businessman, who would underwrite the symposium with $500,000 to $2m in agency funds. The businessman might own a technology company, or the agency might create a shell company for him so that his support would seem legitimate to the institute, which was unaware of the CIA’s hand. “The more clueless the academics are, the safer it is for everybody,” the ex-officer told me. Each cutout knew he was helping the CIA, but he didn’t know why, and the agency would use him only once.

The conference would focus on an aspect of nuclear physics that had civilian applications, and also dovetailed with the Iranian target’s research interests. Typically, Iran’s nuclear scientists also held university appointments. Like professors anywhere, they enjoyed a junket. Iran’s government sometimes allowed them to go to conferences, though under guard, to keep up with the latest research and meet suppliers of cutting-edge technology--and for propaganda.

“From the Iranian point of view, they would clearly have an interest in sending scientists to conferences about peaceful uses of nuclear power,” Ronen Bergman told me. A prominent Israeli journalist, Bergman is the author of The Secret War With Iran: The 30-Year Clandestine Struggle Against the World’s Most Dangerous Terrorist Power, and is working on a history of Israel’s central intelligence service, the Mossad. “They say, ‘Yes, we send our scientists to conferences to use civilian technology for a civilian purpose.’”

The CIA officer assigned to the case might pose as a student, a technical consultant, or an exhibitor with a booth. His first job would be to peel the guards away from the scientist. In one instance, kitchen staff recruited by the CIA poisoned the guards’ meal, leaving them incapacitated by diarrhoea and vomiting. The hope was that they would attribute their illness to aeroplane food or an unfamiliar cuisine.

With luck, the officer would catch the scientist alone for a few minutes, and pitch to him. He would have boned up on the Iranian by reading files and courting “access agents” close to him. That way, if the scientist expressed doubt that he was really dealing with the CIA, the officer could respond that he knew everything about him, even the most intimate details--and prove it. One officer told a potential defector: “I know you had testicular cancer and you lost your left nut.”

Even after the scientist agreed to defect, he might reconsider and run away. “You’re constantly re-recruiting the guy,” the ex-officer said. Once he was safely in a car to the airport, the CIA coordinated the necessary visas and flight documents with allied intelligence agencies. It would also spare no effort to bring his wife and children to the US--though not his mistress, as one scientist requested. The agency would resettle the scientist and his family and provide long-term benefits, including paying for the children’s college and graduate school.

Enough scientists defected to the US, through academic conferences and other routes, to hinder Iran’s nuclear weapons programme, the ex-officer familiar with the operation told me. He said an engineer who assembled centrifuges for Iran’s nuclear programme agreed to defect on one condition: that he pursue a doctorate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Unfortunately, the CIA had spirited him out of Iran without credentials such as diplomas and transcripts. At first, MIT refused the CIA’s request to consider him. But the agency persisted, and the renowned engineering school agreed to accommodate the CIA by waiving its usual screening procedures. It mustered a group of professors from related departments to grill the defector. He aced the oral exam, was admitted, and earned his doctorate.

MIT administrators deny any knowledge of the episode. “I’m completely ignorant of this,” said Gang Chen, chairman of mechanical engineering. However, two academics corroborated key elements of the story. Muhammad Sahimi, a professor of petroleum engineering at the University of Southern California who studies Iranian nuclear and political development, told me that a defector from Iran’s nuclear programme received a doctorate from MIT in mechanical engineering. Timothy Gutowski, an MIT professor of mechanical engineering, said: “I do know of a young man that was here in our lab. Somehow I learned that he did work on centrifuges in Iran. I started thinking: ‘What went on here?”

With Iran’s agreement in 2015 to limit nuclear weapons development in return for the lifting of international sanctions, recruitment of defectors from the programme by US intelligence lost some urgency. But if President Trump scraps or seeks to renegotiate the deal, which he denounced in a September speech to the United Nations General Assembly, CIA-staged conferences to snag key Iranian nuclear scientists could make a clandestine comeback.

This is an edited extract from Spy Schools: How the CIA, FBI, and Foreign Intelligence Secretly Exploit America’s Universities, published by Henry Holt on 1 November at £22.99.

#CIA recruiting #scientific conferences #academic conferences #Centra Technology Inc

0 notes

anchorarcade · 7 years

Text

How the CIA staged sham academic conferences to thwart Iran’s nuclear program

http://ryanguillory.com/how-the-cia-staged-sham-academic-conferences-to-thwart-irans-nuclear-program/

How the CIA staged sham academic conferences to thwart Iran’s nuclear program

The CIA agent tapped softly on the hotel room door. After the keynote speeches, panel discussions and dinner, the conference attendees had retired for the night. Audio and visual surveillance of the room showed that the nuclear scientist’s minders from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps were sleeping but he was still awake. Sure enough, he opened the door, alone.

According to a person familiar with this encounter, which took place about a decade ago, the agency had been preparing it for months. Through a business front, it had funded and staged the conference at an unsuspecting foreign institution of scientific research, invited speakers and guests, and planted operatives among the kitchen workers and other staff, just so it could entice the nuclear expert out of Iran, separate him for a few minutes from his guards, and pitch him one-on-one. A last-minute snag had almost derailed the plans: The target switched hotels because the conference’s preferred hotel cost $75 more than his superiors in Iran were willing to spend.

The scientist started to ask one, but the agent interrupted him. “First, get the ice bucket,” he said.

“Why?”

“If any of your guards wake up, you can tell them you’re going to get some ice.”

In perhaps its most audacious and elaborate incursion into academia, the CIA secretly spent millions of dollars staging scientific conferences around the world. Its purpose was to lure Iranian nuclear scientists out of their homeland and into an accessible setting where its intelligence officers could approach them individually and press them to defect. In other words, the agency sought to delay Iran’s development of nuclear weapons by exploiting academia’s internationalism, and pulling off a mass deception on the institutions that hosted the conferences and the professors who attended and spoke at them. The people attending the conference had no idea they were acting in a drama that simulated reality but was stage-managed from afar. Whether the national security mission justified this manipulation of the professoriate can be debated, but there’s little doubt that most academics would have balked at being dupes in a CIA scheme.

More than any other academic venue, conferences lend themselves to espionage. Assisted by globalization, these social and intellectual rituals have become ubiquitous. Like stops on the world golf or tennis circuits, they sprout up wherever the climate is favorable, and draw a jet-setting crowd. What they lack in prize money, they make up for in prestige. Although researchers chat electronically all the time, virtual meetings are no substitute for getting together with peers, networking for jobs, checking out the latest gadgets, and delivering papers that will later be published in volumes of conference proceedings. “The attraction of the conference circuit,” English novelist David Lodge wrote in “Small World,” his 1984 send-up of academic life, is that “it’s a way of converting work into play, combining professionalism with tourism, and all at someone else’s expense. Write a paper and see the world!”

The importance of a conference may be measured not only by the number of Nobel Prize winners or Oxford dons it attracts, but by the number of spies. U.S. and foreign intelligence officers flock to conferences for the same reason that Army recruiters concentrate on low-income neighborhoods: They make the best hunting grounds. While a university campus may have only one or two professors of interest to an intelligence service, the right conference — on drone technology, perhaps, or ISIS — may have dozens.

“Every intelligence service in the world works conferences, sponsors conferences, and looks for ways to get people to conferences,” says a former CIA operative.

“Recruitment is a long process of seduction,” said Mark Galeotti, senior researcher at the Institute of International Relations Prague and former special adviser to the British foreign office. “The first stage is to arrange to be at the same workshop as a target. Even if you just exchange banalities, the next time you can say, ‘Did I see you in Istanbul?'”

The FBI and CIA swarm conferences, too. At gatherings in the United States, says a former FBI agent, “foreign intelligence officers try to collect Americans; we try to collect them.” The CIA is involved with conferences in various ways: It sends officers to them; it hosts them through fronts in the Washington area, so that the intelligence community can tap academic wisdom; and it mounts sham conferences to reach potential defectors from hostile countries.

The CIA monitors upcoming conferences worldwide and identifies those of interest. Suppose there is an international conference in Pakistan on centrifuge technology: The CIA would send its own agent undercover, or enlist a professor who might be going anyway to report back. If it learns that an Iranian nuclear scientist attended the conference, it might peg him for possible recruitment at the next year’s meeting.

Intelligence from academic conferences can shape policy. It helped persuade the George W. Bush administration — mistakenly, as it turned out — that Saddam Hussein was still developing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. “What our spies and informants were noticing, of course, was that Iraqi scientists specializing in chemistry, biology, and, to a lesser extent, nuclear power kept showing up at international symposia,” former CIA counterterrorism officer John Kiriakou wrote in a 2009 memoir. “They presented papers, listened to the presentation of others, took copious notes, and returned to Jordan, where they could transmit overland back to Iraq.”

Some of those spies may have drawn the wrong conclusions because they lacked advanced degrees in chemistry, biology or nuclear power. Without expertise, agents may misunderstand the subject matter, or be exposed as frauds. At conferences hosted by the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna on topics such as isotope hydrology and fusion energy, “there’s probably more intelligence officers roaming the hallways than actual scientists,” says Gene Coyle, who worked for the CIA from 1976 to 2006. “There’s one slight problem. If you’re going to send a CIA guy to attend one of these conferences, he has to talk the talk. It’s hard to send a history major. ‘Yes, I have a PhD in plasma physics.’ Also, that’s a very small world. If you say you’re from the Fermi Institute in Chicago, they say, ‘You must know Bob, Fred, Susie.'”

“Smith might say, ‘I am attending it, I’ll let you know who I chatted with. If I bump into an Iranian, I won’t run in the opposite direction.’ If he says, ‘I’d love to attend, but the travel budget at the university is pretty tight,’ the CIA or FBI might say, ‘Well, you know, we might be able to take care of your ticket, in economy class.'”

A spy’s courtship of a professor often begins with a seemingly random encounter — known in the trade as a “bump” — at an academic conference. One former CIA operative overseas explained to me how it works. I’ll call him “R.”

“I recruited a ton of people at conferences,” R told me. “I was good at it, and it’s not that hard.”

Between assignments, he would peruse a list of upcoming conferences, pick one, and identify a scientist of interest who seemed likely to attend after having spoken at least twice at the same event in previous years. R would assign trainees at the CIA and NSA to develop a profile of the target — educational background, college instructors and so on. Then he would cable headquarters, asking for travel funding. The trick was to make the cable persuasive enough to score the expense money, but not so compelling that other agents who read it, and were based closer to the conference, would try to preempt him.

Next he developed his cover — typically, as a businessman. He invented a company name, used GoDaddy.com to build a website and printed business cards. He created billing, phone and credit card records for the nonexistent company. For his name, he chose one of his seven aliases.

“The bump is fleeting,” R says. “You just register your face in their mind.”

No one else should notice the bump. It’s a rookie mistake to approach a target in front of other people who might be minders assigned by the professor’s own country. The minders would report the conversation, compromising the target’s security and making them unwilling or unable to entertain further overtures.

For the rest of the conference, R would “run around like crazy,” bumping into the scientist at every opportunity. With each contact, called “time on target” in CIA jargon and counted in his job performance metrics, he insinuated himself into the professor’s affections. For instance, having done his homework, R would say he had read a wonderful article on such-and-such topic but couldn’t remember the author’s name. “That was me,” the scientist would say, blushing.

After a couple of days, R would invite the scientist to lunch or dinner and make his pitch: His company was interested in the scientist’s work and would like to support it. “Every academic I have ever met is constantly trying to figure how to get grants to continue his research. That’s all they talk about.” They would agree on a specific project, and the price, which varied by the scientist’s country: “One thousand to five thousand dollars for a Pakistani. Korea is more.” Once the CIA pays foreign professors who are unaware at first of the funding source, it controls them, because exposure of the relationship might imperil their careers or even their lives in their native country.

Scientific conferences have become such a draw for intelligence agents that one of the biggest concerns for CIA operatives is interference from agency colleagues trapping the same academic prey. “We tend to flood events like these,” a former CIA officer who writes under the pseudonym Ishmael Jones observed in his 2008 book, “The Human Factor: Inside the CIA’s Dysfunctional Intelligence Culture.” At one 2005 conference in Paris that he anticipated would be a “perfect watering hole for visiting rogue state weapons scientists,” Jones recalled, his heart sank as he glanced across the room and saw two CIA agents (who were themselves professors). He avoided their line of sight while he roamed the gathering, eyeballing nametags and trawling for “people who might make good sources,” ideally from North Korea, Iran, Libya, Russia or China.

“I’m surprised there’s so much open intelligence presence at these conferences,” Karsten Geier said. “There are so many people running around from so many acronyms.” Geier, head of cybersecurity policy for the German foreign office, and I were chatting at the Sixth Annual International Conference on Cyber Engagement, held in April 2016 at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. The religious art, stained-glass windows and classical quotations lining Gaston Hall enveloped the directors of the NSA and the FBI like an elaborate disguise as they gave keynote addresses on combating one of the most daunting challenges of the twenty-first century: cyberattacks.

The NSA’s former top codebreaker spoke, as did the ex-chairman of the National Intelligence Council, the deputy director of Italy’s security department and the director of a center that does classified research for Swedish intelligence. The name tags that almost all of the seven hundred attendees wore showed that they worked for the US government, foreign embassies, intelligence contractors, or vendors of cyber-related products, or they taught at universities.

Perhaps not all of the intelligence presence was open. Officially, 40 nations — from Brazil to Mauritius, Serbia to Sri Lanka — were represented at the conference, but not Russia. Yet, hovering in the rear of the balcony, a slender young man, carrying a briefcase, listened to the panels. No name tag adorned his lapel. I approached him, introduced myself and asked his name. “Alexander,” he said, and, after a pause, “Belousov.”

“How do you like the conference?”

“No,” he said, trying to ward off further inquiries. “I am from Russian embassy. I don’t have any opinions. I would like to know, that’s all.”

I proffered a business card, and requested his, in vain. “I am here only a month. My cards are still being produced.”

I persisted, asking about his job at the embassy. (A subsequent check of a diplomatic directory showed him as a “second secretary.”) He looked at his watch. “I am sorry. I must go.”

When the CIA wants Professor John Booth’s opinion, it phones him to find out if he’s available to speak at a conference. But the agency’s name is nowhere to be found on the conference’s formal invitation and agenda, which invariably list a Beltway contractor as the sponsor.

By hiding its role, the CIA makes it easier for scholars to share their insights at its conferences. They take credit for their presentations on their curriculum vitae without disclosing that they consulted for the CIA, which might alienate some academic colleagues as well as the countries where they conduct their research.

An emeritus professor of political science at the University of North Texas, Booth specializes in studying Latin America, a region where history has taught officials to be wary of the CIA. “If you were intending to return to Latin America, it was very important that your CV not reflect” these kinds of presentations, Booth told me in March 2016. “When you go to one of these conferences, if there are intelligence or defense agency principals there, it’s invisible on your CV. It provides a fig leaf for participants. There’s still some bias in academia against this. I don’t go around in Latin American studies meetings saying I spent time at a conference run by the CIA.”

The CIA arranges conferences on foreign policy issues so that its analysts, who are often immersed in classified details, can learn from scholars who understand the big picture and are familiar with publicly available sources. Participating professors are generally paid a $1000 honorarium, plus expenses. With scholarly presentations followed by questions and answers, the sessions are like those at any academic meeting, except that many attendees — presumably, CIA analysts — wear name tags with only their first names.

Of ten intelligence agency conferences that Booth attended over the years, most recently a 2015 session about a wave of Central American refugee children pouring into the United States, the CIA and Office of the Director of National Intelligence directly ran only one or two. The rest were outsourced to Centra Technology Inc., the leader of a growing industry of Beltway intermediaries — “cutouts,” in espionage parlance — that run conferences for the CIA.

“If you know anything, when you see Centra, you know it’s likely to be CIA or ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence],” said Robert Jervis, a Columbia University professor of international politics and longtime CIA consultant. “They do feel that for some academics thin cover is useful.”

Established in 1997, Centra has received more than $200 million in government contracts, including $40 million from the CIA for administrative support, such as compiling and redacting classified cables and documents for the five-year Senate Intelligence Committee study of the agency’s torture program. As of 2015, its executive ranks teemed with former intelligence officials. Founder and chief executive Harold Rosenbaum was a science and technology adviser to the CIA. Senior vice president Rick Bogusky headed the Korea division at the Defense Intelligence Agency. Vice president for research James Harris managed analytic programs at the CIA for 22 years. Peggy Lyons, director of global access, was a longtime CIA manager and officer with several tours in East Asia. David Kanin, Centra analytic director, spent 31 years as a CIA analyst.

Like Booth, Indiana University political scientist Sumit Ganguly has spoken at several Centra conferences. “Anybody who works with Centra knows they’re in effect working for the U.S. government,” he said. “If it said CIA, there are others who would fret about it. I make no bones about it to my colleagues. If it sticks in their craw, it’s their tough luck. I am an American citizen. I feel I should proffer the best possible advice to my government.”

Another political scientist, who has given four presentations for Centra, said he was told that it represented unnamed “clients.” He didn’t realize the clients were US intelligence agencies until he noticed audience members with first-name-only name tags. He later ran into one or two of the same people at an academic conference. They weren’t wearing name tags and weren’t listed in the program.

Centra strives to mask its CIA connections. It removed its executives’ biographies from its website in 2015. The “featured customers” listed there include the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, the Army and 16 other branches of the federal government — but not the CIA. When I phoned Rosenbaum and asked him about Centra holding conferences for the CIA, he said, “You’re calling the wrong person. We have nothing to do with that.” And then he hung up.

“To be frank,” she said, “our customers prefer us not to talk to the media.”

For Iranian academics escaping to the West, academic conferences are a modern-day underground railroad. The CIA has taken full advantage of this vulnerability. Beginning under President George W. Bush, the U.S. government had “endless money” for covert efforts to delay Iran’s development of nuclear weapons, the Institute for Science and International Security’s David Albright told me. One program was the CIA’s Operation Brain Drain, which sought to spur top Iranian nuclear scientists to defect.

Because it was hard to approach the scientists in Iran, the CIA enticed them to academic conferences in friendly or neutral countries, a former intelligence officer familiar with the operation told me. In consultation with Israel, the agency would choose a prospect. Then it would set up a conference at a prestigious scientific institute through a cutout, typically a businessman, who would underwrite the symposium with $500,000 to $2 million in agency funds. The businessman might own a technology company, or the agency might create a shell company for him, so that his support would seem legitimate to the institute, which was unaware of the CIA’s hand. “The more clueless the academics are, the safer it is for everybody,” the ex-officer told me. Each cutout knew he was helping the CIA, but he didn’t know why, and the agency would use him only once.

The conference would focus on an aspect of nuclear physics that had civilian applications and also dovetailed with the Iranian target’s research interests. Typically, Iran’s nuclear scientists also held university appointments. Like professors anywhere, they enjoyed a junket. Iran’s government sometimes allowed them to go to conferences, though under guard, to keep up with the latest research and meet suppliers of cutting-edge technology — and for propaganda.

“From the Iranian point of view, they would clearly have an interest to send scientists to conferences about peaceful uses of nuclear power,” Ronen Bergman told me. A prominent Israeli journalist, Bergman is the author of “The Secret War with Iran: The 30-Year Clandestine Struggle Against the World’s Most Dangerous Terrorist Power,” and is working on a history of Israel’s central intelligence service, the Mossad. “They say, yes, we send our scientists to conferences to use civilian technology for a civilian purpose.”

The CIA officer assigned to the case might pose as a student, a technical consultant or an exhibitor with a booth. His first job would be to peel the guards away from the scientist. In one instance, kitchen staff recruited by the CIA poisoned the guards’ meal, leaving them incapacitated by diarrhea and vomiting. The hope was that they would attribute their illness to airplane food or an unfamiliar cuisine.

With luck, the officer would catch the scientist alone for a few minutes, and pitch him. He would have boned up on the Iranian by reading files and courting “access agents” close to him. That way, if the scientist expressed doubt that he was really dealing with the CIA, the officer could respond that he knew everything about him, even the most intimate details — and prove it. One officer told a potential defector, “I know you had testicular cancer and you lost your left nut.”

Even after the scientist agreed to defect, he might reconsider and run away. “You’re constantly re-recruiting the guy.” Once he was safely in a car to the airport, the CIA coordinated the necessary visas and flight documents with allied intelligence agencies. It would also spare no effort to bring his wife and children to the United States — though not his mistress, as one scientist requested. The agency would resettle the scientist and his family and provide long-term benefits, including paying for the children’s college and graduate school.

Enough scientists defected to the United States, through academic conferences and other routes, to hinder Iran’s nuclear weapons program, the ex-officer familiar with the operation told me. He said an engineer who assembled centrifuges for Iran’s nuclear program agreed to defect on one condition: that he pursue a doctorate at MIT. Unfortunately, the CIA had spirited him out of Iran without credentials such as diplomas and transcripts. At first, MIT refused the CIA’s request to consider him. But the agency persisted, and the renowned engineering school agreed to accommodate the CIA by waiving its usual screening procedures. It mustered a group of professors from related departments to grill the defector. He aced the oral exam, was admitted and earned his doctorate.

MIT administrators denied any knowledge of the episode. “I’m completely ignorant of this,” said Gang Chen, chairman of mechanical engineering.

However, two academics corroborated key elements of the story. Muhammad Sahimi, a professor of petroleum engineering at the University of Southern California who studies Iranian nuclear and political development, told me that a defector from Iran’s nuclear program received a doctorate from MIT in mechanical engineering.

Timothy Gutowski, an MIT professor of mechanical engineering, said, “I do know of a young man that was here in our lab. Somehow I learned that he did work on centrifuges in Iran. I started thinking, ‘What went on here?'”

With Iran’s agreement in 2015 to limit nuclear weapons development in return for lifting of international sanctions, recruitment of defectors from the program by U.S. intelligence lost some urgency. But if President Donald Trump scraps or seeks to renegotiate the deal, which he denounced in a September speech to the United Nations General Assembly, CIA-staged conferences to snag key Iranian nuclear scientists could make a clandestine comeback.

Source link

0 notes

awesomefelicitylewis-blog · 7 years

Text

How the CIA staged sham academic conferences to thwart Iran’s nuclear program

http://ryanguillory.com/how-the-cia-staged-sham-academic-conferences-to-thwart-irans-nuclear-program/

How the CIA staged sham academic conferences to thwart Iran’s nuclear program

The CIA agent tapped softly on the hotel room door. After the keynote speeches, panel discussions and dinner, the conference attendees had retired for the night. Audio and visual surveillance of the room showed that the nuclear scientist’s minders from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps were sleeping but he was still awake. Sure enough, he opened the door, alone.

According to a person familiar with this encounter, which took place about a decade ago, the agency had been preparing it for months. Through a business front, it had funded and staged the conference at an unsuspecting foreign institution of scientific research, invited speakers and guests, and planted operatives among the kitchen workers and other staff, just so it could entice the nuclear expert out of Iran, separate him for a few minutes from his guards, and pitch him one-on-one. A last-minute snag had almost derailed the plans: The target switched hotels because the conference’s preferred hotel cost $75 more than his superiors in Iran were willing to spend.

The scientist started to ask one, but the agent interrupted him. “First, get the ice bucket,” he said.

“Why?”

“If any of your guards wake up, you can tell them you’re going to get some ice.”

“Every intelligence service in the world works conferences, sponsors conferences, and looks for ways to get people to conferences,” says a former CIA operative.

“I recruited a ton of people at conferences,” R told me. “I was good at it, and it’s not that hard.”

Between assignments, he would peruse a list of upcoming conferences, pick one, and identify a scientist of interest who seemed likely to attend after having spoken at least twice at the same event in previous years. R would assign trainees at the CIA and NSA to develop a profile of the target — educational background, college instructors and so on. Then he would cable headquarters, asking for travel funding. The trick was to make the cable persuasive enough to score the expense money, but not so compelling that other agents who read it, and were based closer to the conference, would try to preempt him.

“The bump is fleeting,” R says. “You just register your face in their mind.”

“I’m surprised there’s so much open intelligence presence at these conferences,” Karsten Geier said. “There are so many people running around from so many acronyms.” Geier, head of cybersecurity policy for the German foreign office, and I were chatting at the Sixth Annual International Conference on Cyber Engagement, held in April 2016 at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. The religious art, stained-glass windows and classical quotations lining Gaston Hall enveloped the directors of the NSA and the FBI like an elaborate disguise as they gave keynote addresses on combating one of the most daunting challenges of the twenty-first century: cyberattacks.

“How do you like the conference?”

“No,” he said, trying to ward off further inquiries. “I am from Russian embassy. I don’t have any opinions. I would like to know, that’s all.”

I proffered a business card, and requested his, in vain. “I am here only a month. My cards are still being produced.”

I persisted, asking about his job at the embassy. (A subsequent check of a diplomatic directory showed him as a “second secretary.”) He looked at his watch. “I am sorry. I must go.”

The CIA arranges conferences on foreign policy issues so that its analysts, who are often immersed in classified details, can learn from scholars who understand the big picture and are familiar with publicly available sources. Participating professors are generally paid a $1000 honorarium, plus expenses. With scholarly presentations followed by questions and answers, the sessions are like those at any academic meeting, except that many attendees — presumably, CIA analysts — wear name tags with only their first names.

Like Booth, Indiana University political scientist Sumit Ganguly has spoken at several Centra conferences. “Anybody who works with Centra knows they’re in effect working for the U.S. government,” he said. “If it said CIA, there are others who would fret about it. I make no bones about it to my colleagues. If it sticks in their craw, it’s their tough luck. I am an American citizen. I feel I should proffer the best possible advice to my government.”

Centra strives to mask its CIA connections. It removed its executives’ biographies from its website in 2015. The “featured customers” listed there include the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, the Army and 16 other branches of the federal government �� but not the CIA. When I phoned Rosenbaum and asked him about Centra holding conferences for the CIA, he said, “You’re calling the wrong person. We have nothing to do with that.” And then he hung up.

“To be frank,” she said, “our customers prefer us not to talk to the media.”

MIT administrators denied any knowledge of the episode. “I’m completely ignorant of this,” said Gang Chen, chairman of mechanical engineering.

Source link

0 notes