Clooney's "Anti-Genocide Paparazzi"

George Clooney and John Prendergast slumped down at a wooden table in a dusty school compound in southern Sudan. It was Oct. 4, and the two men were in the hometown of Valentino Achak Deng, whose experiences wandering the desert as a refugee during Sudan's last civil war were the basis for the best-selling book What Is the What.

Clooney, the actor, and Prendergast, a human-rights activist with 25 years of experience in Africa, had heard enough on their seven-day visit to know that a new round of atrocities could follow the January referendum on independence. If it did, the likelihood was that no one would be held accountable. Why not, Clooney asked, "work out some sort of a deal to spin a satellite" above southern Sudan and let the world watch to see what happens?

Three months later, Clooney's idea is about to go live. Starting Dec. 30, the Satellite Sentinel Project — a joint experiment by the U.N.'s Operational Satellite Applications Programme, Harvard University, the Enough Project and Clooney's posse of Hollywood funders — will hire private satellites to monitor troop movements starting with the oil-rich region of Abyei. The images will be analyzed and made public at [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (which goes live on Dec. 29) within 24 hours of an event to remind the leaders of northern and southern Sudan that they are being watched. "We are the antigenocide paparazzi," Clooney tells TIME. "We want them to enjoy the level of celebrity attention that I usually get. If you know your actions are going to be covered, you tend to behave much differently than when you operate in a vacuum."

You don't have to be a spook to have an eye in the sky anymore. Private firms with names like GeoEye, DigitalGlobe and ImageSat International have a half-dozen "birds" circling the globe every 90 minutes in low-Earth orbit, about 297 miles (478 km) up. The best images from these satellites display about 8 sq. in. (50 sq. cm) of the ground in each pixel on a computer screen. That is not enough granularity to read a car's license plate or ID a person, but analysts can tell the difference between cars and trucks and track the movements of troops or horses. "It is Google Earth on lots of steroids," says Lars Bromley, a top U.N. imagery analyst.

But you need money for it. A hurry-up order of what Bromley calls a "single shot" from a satellite covers an area of about 105 sq. mi. (272 sq. km) and costs $10,000. A rush job on a "full strip" image of land roughly 70 miles (115 km) long and 9 miles (14 km) wide could run nearly $70,000. Sentinel is launching with $750,000 in seed money from Not On Our Watch, the human rights organization Clooney founded along with Don Cheadle, Matt Damon, Brad Pitt, David Pressman and Jerry Weintraub. Clooney predicted he won't have much trouble raising more money once the project goes live.

Prendergast's group, the Enough Project, is the human-rights arm of the liberal Center for American Progress; it recruited Bromley's team at the U.N. and brought in analysts from the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative to pore over the images as they arrive. "Generally, what we have done in the past is an after-the-fact documentation exercise," Bromley explains. "This is proactive, wide-area monitoring," he says.

Clooney, who has made four trips to Sudan since 2006, believes Sentinel might have applications in other global hot spots. "This is as if this were 1943 and we had a camera inside Auschwitz and we said, 'O.K., if you guys don't want to do anything about it, that's one thing,'" Clooney says. "But you can't say you did not know."


Read more: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

That's a little freaky, but if we've got the technology, why not put it to use.

Organisers said the Satellite Sentinel Project will be available online at

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I wonder if announcing it like this will cause them to NOT start anything. Of course, that would be a great thing and I wonder if that's why they've done it. On the other hand, not that I want anybody killed, but if they would start some crap then maybe, just maybe, others in the world would then believe that they're not good people!! Instead of "closing their eyes"!!

George Clooney's Message To Stop The War
ENOUGH Project
George Clooney, Don Cheadle, Matt Damon, Brad Pitt, Jerry Weintraub

Disaster Relief, Human Rights, Peace, Rape/Sexual Abuse, Refugees

December 31, 2010

Earlier today, LookToTheStars.org brought you a story about George Clooney's new initiative to bring peace to Sudan through [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] He has released this personal message – with John Prendergast – on what he hopes to achieve.

“A new state is being born in Southern Sudan against a backdrop of decades of war between the South and North of Sudan. A peace deal in 2005 ended the latest round of open conflict, but the possibility of a return to war remains high as Southern Sudan prepares for independence.

“One of the biggest risks in this dangerous moment is that an incident on the highly armed border could lead to wider conflict. The government in Khartoum has armed militias in contested bordering regions, the government air force has bombed border areas, and both sides have massed military units and equipment along the hottest border spots.

“These areas have witnessed some of the most deadly conflict in the world since World War II. The former director of national intelligence says that Southern Sudan is the place in the world most likely to experience genocide.

“We can’t allow another deadly war, and we surely cannot stand by in the face of a genocide threat.

“We were late to Rwanda. We were late to the Congo. We were late to Darfur. There is no time to wait. With your support, we will swiftly call the world to witness and respond. We aim to provide an ever more effective early-warning system: better, faster visual evidence and on-the-ground reporting of human rights concerns to facilitate better, faster responses.

“This is why we have launched the Satellite Sentinel Project. There has never been a sustained effort to systematically monitor potential hot spots and threats to human security, in near real-time, with the aim of heading off humanitarian disaster and war crimes before they occur.

“Previously, when mass atrocities occurred in Darfur, the Government of Sudan denied its involvement. Since photographers could not get access, it took years to amass evidence of genocide. But now we can witness in near real-time and put all parties on notice that if they commit war crimes, we will all be watching, and pressuring policymakers to take action.

“We want to cast a spotlight – literally – on the hot spots along the border to record any actions that might escalate the chances of conflict. We hope that if many eyes are on the potential spoilers, we can all help detect, deter and interdict actions that could lead to a return to deadly violence. At the very least, if war crimes do occur, we’ll have plenty of evidence of the actions of the perpetrators to share with the International Criminal Court and the UN Security Council.

“The world is watching because you are watching. This is our opportunity to prevent a war, to deter genocide. Make your voice heard.”

SatSentinel.org is an unprecedented collaboration between Not On Our Watch – the human rights organization co-founded by actor and Sudan advocate George Clooney, Don Cheadle, Matt Damon, Brad Pitt, producer Jerry Weintraub and human rights lawyer David Pressman – and the ENOUGH Project, an anti-genocide group.

Visit [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] here.

Read more: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

In the first Sunday-show interview of 2011, the White House point man on the economy talks about what the president expects of the economy for the coming year. Why has the recovery been so sluggish? When will Americans see real growth? And can the White House work with a Republican Congress? How will the administration slash the deficit?

Then, actor and activist George Clooney has a message for the government of Sudan: "The world is watching."


Clooney comes to "This Week" for an exclusive interview to discuss the launch of a new project using satellites to provide immediate images of the war-torn region in an effort to prevent human atrocities. Days before his trip to Sudan and a week before elections there, Clooney and John Prendergast of the Enough Project talk about their efforts to prevent another genocide, only on "This Week."

Plus our roundtable of George Will, Democratic political strategist Donna Brazile, ABC News Political Director Amy Walter and National Journal Congressional Correspondent Major Garret discuss the incoming Republican Congress and its investigative agenda.

What's the political outlook in the new year for the president, the Tea Party and potential 2012 White House contenders? And has nasty winter weather put a big chill on many state and local politicians?

All ahead, Sunday on "This Week." You won't want to miss it.

Thanks Merlin!

Well, did anyone else watch ABC this morning? I think that our George is at home in LA. It was a current interview, not one recorded when he and John were together. John was in Washington and George was at home. It looked as if he was sitting on his back deck. He said Happy New Year to the interviewer guy. His shirt and tie were a little unkempt and it looks as if he's trying for a goatee. He just looked so old and, I don't know. Sure, it was early in LA - it showed here at 7:15, so 6:15 in LA, but it was probably recorded an hour or so earlier. They just talked about the project and the good reasons for it. What did anybody else think?

I watched. He looked bleary-eyed, but he was doing a great job until that follow-up where he was asked to augment Prendergast's answer. That was awkward. It's not easy to extemporize, especially at 7am. And it felt like there was a delay, so he needed an extra beat to finish listening to the question.

This whole satellite thing is kind of cockamamie (imho), but it's a good way to get the referendum back in the news.

Maybe that's why George isn't in Cabo anymore? If they scheduled this satellite interview in advance, maybe they weren't prepared to move it and he had to go back to LA to do the interview. It's odd that he would have to come back for that, since the interview was going to be done remotely anyway, why would it make a difference where I wonder?

Lighter, they probably didn't want George doing this "serious" interview in his Jack's white t-shirt with Elisabetta prancing around in the background with her butt crack out!!!!

PigLove, I agree, that moment was very awkward. There seemed to only be a second or two time-delay, but George kind of floundered for a second.

Floundered like he didn't know the answer, Melbert/Piglove?

I wonder if the goatee is for the new movie?

Clooney: Obama has kept campaign promises on Sudan

Actor and activist George Clooney said Sunday that President Obama has kept his campaign promises to end genocide and get tough with the government in Sudan.

Clooney appeared on ABC's "This Week" to talk about continuing crisis in the African nation as the country faces a heated secession referendum a week from now.

When asked if Obama has kept his vows to tackle issues in the war-torn nation, Clooney said, "Yes, he has."

"It's a tough one to keep, you know?" he said. "There's -- it's a very complicated situation. It is going to get a lot more complicated. We met with the president. The president seems to be very much on top of the issue.

"And we want to make sure -- and our job is to keep the pressure on to make sure that -- that there's no slippage in that at all," Clooney added.

Clooney's partner in Sudan efforts, John Prendergast of the Enough Project in Washington, said it was "President Obama's moment."

"You know, the United States is the biggest actor in Sudan," Prendergast said. "We can have a major influence on whether or not a deal is struck between the North and the South to prevent a war, and we can have a major influence on whether human rights violations continue in Darfur. That's going to take presidential leadership."

Members of the congressional Sucan Caucus have expressed concern that a lack of administration involvement in the heated referendum that gives the Christian south the opportunity to split from the Musilm north could send the region spiraling into fresh violence.

"He's become engaged now," Prendergast said of Obama. "We'll see if he can bring it that last mile."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Casey wrote:Floundered like he didn't know the answer, Melbert/Piglove?

I wonder if the goatee is for the new movie?

I forgot to watch!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm sure its for the movie, too, Casey.

I guess that's why he's home. EC must have been mad especially since she wasn't involved. LOL!

Casey, the interviewer asked one question and wanted a response from both John and George. John answered first and then George was asked for his response. He kind of looked dumbstruck and basically said "that's what I was going to say", but then didn't really add much after that. That's why I called it floundering. PigLove called it "awkward" and that's exactly what it was. George can offer a "scripted dialogue" that we all know so well, but when he's doing "off-the-cuff" he has a tendency to stammer a bit. That's what he did.

His answer about Obama was the best -- it didn't sound scripted and it was fair and nuanced. Smooth, in fact. I almost cheered.

I read the transcript of this earlier. He came across as if he just about knew the facts. It was really poor, and at times, inarticulate and almost as if he was floundering under the 'assault' of questions. .

What I don't understand with him is why he can't just bring the spotlight, be a very vocal part of the 'news campaign' element, continue with the light-shining, but let people who are far better informed (and ideally more articulate than him), do the talking. If he's unwilling to do that, then he needs to prepare better for appearances like this. Prendergast at least was reasonably articulate and precise in his answers. Otherwise, he just comes across as out of his depth and who really wants to listen to that?

Hi Caged, could it be that THEY want him "out there" promoting because it's GEORGE CLOONEY and people are going to listen to anything he has to say because it's GEORGE CLOONEY? He has said that "the cameras follow me, so why not do it for a good cause" (or words to that effect). I'm sure he wants to be "out there" too, but I agree, he's not real articulate as I stated above with the "off-the-cuff" type stuff. I think that he makes sure that he is well informed about everything, so I don't think it's a matter of him not having the information.

Video George's interview : [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Hey Mel. Who wants him out there though? And I would argue that it being George Clooney is a reason for a lot of people to switch off rather than on.

I'm not disputing his light-shining value at all, this is what he's very good at and why he should of course continue with it - what I have a prob with is his inability to get a convincing, authoratitive and coherent message across. John P, by comparison, is a far better speaker than he is. It was exactly the same at the uni talk he and John P gave - Clooney came across as 'lite', shaky on the detail and it showed when he would use 20 words to say what could have been said using 5. Personally, I think it's ego and control freakery - he really should be objective enough about himself to know when to hand things over to the big boys.

I'm not saying he shouldn't do these interviews, he can still attend and wear a sharp suit and look pretty and nod thoughtfully from time to time - but leave the talking to those who have the authority and maybe are less polarising than he is.

Great points Caged. "+" "+"

Transcript of the interview : [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Thanks for the link laetval!

George seems to be well versed in the subject matter to me but what I see is someone who's obviously suffering from over indulgence during the holiday with a little too much cheer and either still sobering up or hung over (given the extreme puffines around the eyes and blotchy skin) and having difficulty organizing his thoughts properly. I've noticed before that George speaks quickly, sometimes too quickly and you can actually watch/hear him editing those thoughts as they come in a spat or flood and he's editing and organizing them by buying time with stammering while speaking.

Lighter - "+" "+"

I forgot - isn't this Friday the big vote for the Sudanese?

Clooney: Obama has kept campaign promises on Sudan
The Hill / 3hrs 5mins ago

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Another article about it the ABC interview.

Sorry if this is a repeat of Merlin's post on page 1!!!

The guy needs some sleep.

Sisieq, it's either Friday or Sunday, but I think it's Sunday.

Lighter - Fraid I disagree. Unless every time he's spoken about this, he's been 'under the weather'?

I'm not saying he's not in possession of the facts, I'm saying he is not a good or articulate speaker with an ability to get a point across in a meaningful and convincing way on heavyweight matters. Sudanese politics is complicated enough for those in the thick of it year in year out. Sure, he may have been tired or hungover. But surely if he wants his commitment to be taken seriously, he will make sure he's on form when he's speaking about things that have international import - ie. he'll arrange things in advance so he's NOT tired or hungover? The Sudanese elections are not about George Clooney, they're about the Sudanese people, and surely it's in their best interests that the most authoritative, the most knowledgable, the most articulate and the least polarising people are out there pleading their case? I wonder why Clooney can't see that.

G has said it himself: many things come pretty easy to him (girls, sports, looking good, being charming). Being a policy wonk, diplomat, "activist," or whatever requires EFFORT. And focus. You can't just dabble in it on the side, between movies. Even Paul Newman was mostly retired when he started Newman's Own (and he had a LOT of experienced help).

I don't doubt G's intentions or his goodwill. But Caged is right -- he needs to leave the heavy lifting to the heavyweights.

Well therein lies the difference though Caged, because surely he IS incapacitated to some degree on this particular occasion and he obviously didn't think ahead enough or thought foolishly that he could easily handle it, much to his chagrin because he didn't pull it off as effortlessly as he might have hoped. I don't think George is particularly good at extemporaneous speaking on the best of days for the reasons I stated earlier and certainly not the day after New Years, when he's clearly been partying more than he should have considering the interview and the gravity of the subject matter....and on that, we are agreed.

Happy New Year by the way!

What I see in George is similar to something I experienced. A while ago, I lost my ability to speak and had to relearn to speak all over again. As I was talking to people, I was constantly analyzing whether I sounded ok or not, and I stammered quite a bit. I think perhaps this is what George is doing. I think his mind is not 100% on talking, but a good part of his mentality is on thinking of whether he sounds ok, whether he is delivering his point clearly, whether he is making viable statements supporting his cause, etc. Therefore, his mind is drifting to other thoughts, thusly, interrupting his initial train of thought.

Oh man, that was more than just no sleep or partying too much. Something else going on there.

WOW - Caged, Lighter, PigLove, Deb - you all hit some very valid points. Very well said and very articulate - much better than our George!

Putting up the satelllites is a great idea if it stops them from most certain attacks. But, what happens if they attack anyway? Is there a way to defend them in motion? Otherwise watching it take place in real time would be pure evil. My problem with watching it is giving that sort of evil center stage. I wish there was a more secure plan in place to protect the people there. I wonder how quickly the UN will respond if it does take place. I think they put too much faith in the UN.

If it prevents the attacks from taking place, it would have served it's purpose. I think it is a clever move and I hope it works to stopping a genocide.

Very well said Tigerina!

strange
sick maybe?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Why George Clooney Matters

January 3, 2011
Mark Leon Goldberg
Category: Security
Topics: George Clooney, South Sudan Watch
George Clooney and John Prendergast discuss the situation in South Sudan and their new Satellite Sentinel Project on ABC’s This Week.

I know some people (cough, cough, Bill Easterly, cough, cough) have hangups about celebrity activism. But does anyone really think that Sudan’s upcoming referendum would be covered on a National Sunday morning broadcast without George Clooney’s handsome face to greet viewers?

GC has said often that he's not good talking off the cuff. He has mentioned trying to do what his father did and was horrible at it. He has also remarked that since his accident he has aphasia and short term memory loss. When he gave interviews he often told the same stories, was visible nervous, and IMO this may have been the reason. Yes, there have been times when he appeared to be "under the weather". It seems to happen at celebrity functions. I just don't think he would compromise a cause that he has brought to inter-national attention and that includes being updated on the facts.

anyway I didn't see any news about his strange aspect
am I wrong?

I haven't either It's Me. I think that it's us doing our critique of our George.

Maybe he has the flu

I personally think we should stay focused on the serious nature of the situation and less about what George looks like or the manner that he delivers the message. The most impotant thing here is the cause. If anything, that is why I don't like celebrity involvement, the public gets lost in the celebrity of it. That isn't what is most important here.JMHO

I believe some celebs do it for the press it brings them and for their image. I don't believe for a second that is why George does it.

Nothing wrong with talking about how he looks, but probably not the right thread to do so. LOL!

I don't believe for a second that is why George does it..

Totally agree!

From Merlin’s link earlier:

But does anyone really think that Sudan’s upcoming referendum would be covered on a National Sunday morning broadcast without George Clooney’s handsome face to greet viewers?

It is precisely because of the above that he needs to make sure that both his appearance and delivery are as professional as possible. It’s all very fine and well saying it shouldn’t be about him and the focus should remain on the cause - of course it should - but it is Clooney himself who distracts from the issue by appearing unrehearsed and looking rough. And as Blubelle points out, he himself acknowledges that he is not always on the ball despite his best intentions.

And it’s because I think his motivation and commitment here are 100% genuine that he owes it to himself AND the cause to make sure nothing detracts from it or causes people to focus on him rather than Sudan. Ball’s in his court - if he wants attention for the cause, then don’t provide ammunition in the shape of a tired and hungover face and a slighty distracted 'what was I saying again' manner.

he owes it to himself AND the cause to make sure nothing detracts from it or causes people to focus on him rather than Sudan.

Very true!!

Whether it was George or someone else, if that person was not looking "normal", people will talk.

I guess so

Well after watching the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] my computer broke down. This is going to cost me money !!! Don't I love Google Earth !

Tigerina, I don't think anybody disagrees that the substance of the issue is important, and we are all proud of G for stepping up and bringing it to America's attention.

But this is a Clooney forum, where we talk about all kinds of frivolous stuff, like his teeth, and Betty's bikinis, and Rande's torso. I don't understand your somewhat scolding tone, and what seems like an attempt to steer the conversation toward a topic that is more appropriately discussed on a foreign policy forum. Or, worse, to end the conversation altogether.

Because of that, I'm the one who gave you the "-". HOWEVER, I now realize it's the board's first negative. Oops! I never intended to be that harsh. Your comment did not deserve that distinction (not by a long shot). I'm really sorry -- newbie mistake. If there was a way to take it back (Katiedot?) I would.